/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250423.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 23, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 81 Headlines 90 DEGREE BENEFITS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Alleges ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Removes Aaland Suit to W.D. Wash. AUTOVEST LLC: Class Settlement in Rouzer Gets Final Nod BANK OF AMERICA: Court Lifts Stay of IPERS Class Suit BINANCE HOLDINGS: Baratta Suit Alleges Crypto RICO Violation CALVIN JOHNSON: Court Stays McGuire Suit Pending Appeal CARNEGIE MELLON: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dermenjian Says CELGENE CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Blue Cross Suit CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CRAIGSLIST INC: Faces Kaletsky Over Alleged Online Rental Scam CRUMBL FRANCHISING: Faces Jimenez Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due June 13 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Memoranda DAGWOODS NORTH: Maffeo Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in G.F.F. Suit DONALD TRUMP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply DOYLE & DOYLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says E4 SERVICES: Ipaye Class Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA EMBRY-RIDDLE: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Deadlines EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline ER CARPENTER: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing to June 15 Sought EVOLVE BANK: Faces Justus Over Mismanagement of Customers' Funds EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod EZ SHOP: Miranda Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tighe Due Nov. 21 FLOATME CORP: Burrison Sues Over Illegal Cash Advance Product GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Dlin Suit Removed to D. Maryland HARD EIGHT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miran Due April 17, 2026 HOFFENMER INC: Newell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois HUMANA INC: Court Certifies Class in Elliot HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Continued IAEDP FOUNDATION: More Time to File Amended Complaint Sought IDEAL CONCEPTS: Faces Morris Class Suit Over Prerecorded Messages INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Petzel Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania JAFET TILE: Delcid Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed JAYDEE VENTURES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber Due Oct. 3 JOHN CARNEY: Gibbs Seeks to Certify Settlement Class KORRO BIO INC: Dismissal of Quinones Suit Under Appeal KROGER CO: Kirkbride Plaintiffs Wins Class Certification Bid LAMB WESTON: Still Defending Price-Fixing Suit LIBERTY RESOURCES: Massey Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Files Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Isakov Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website LSKD US: Reyes Class Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website MAC BROTHERS: Petosa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MALLINCKRODT PLC: Status Conference Adjourned in Continental Suit MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Action Referred to Magistrate Judge MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Bid for Default Judgment Tossed MDL 2566: Cellucci's Bid for Class Certification Tossed MICHAEL KORS: Binder Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge MICHAEL KORS: Filing for Class Cert. in Binder Suit Due July 14 MOHELA: Bid to Dismiss Maldonado Class Action Tossed MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradley Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Buccarelli Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Carrato Suit Transferred to N.D. California MSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces Suit Over Reclassification of Shares NAILS & SPA: Lee Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Collective NEXTPLAT CORP: Continues to Defend Weisberg Class Suit in Delaware PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kraker Says PDX NATURALS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Calcano Alleges PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Continues to Defend Buenos Aires Class Suit PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Netherlands PRINCESS ANNE: Donovan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sneed Due Oct. 30 RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hicks Suit REALPAGE PAYMENTS: Davis Suit Removed to D. Maryland REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Cunningham Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois RICKY DIXON: Keohane Suit Seeks Class Certification RSCR CALIFORNIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Delgado Due Oct. 9 SALESFORCE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 18 SERVICE FINANCE: Faces Hutchins Suit Over Deceptive Consumer Loans SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Harper Suit SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Fact Discovery in Herrick Suit Due June 13 SIEMENS MOBILITY: Scovill Suit Removed to E.D. California SIENNA MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber Due Dec. 5 SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Garcia's Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed SMOKY ROSE: Savage Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTHEAST SERIES: Faces Lawson Class Suit Over Data Breach SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Parrott Alleges SPECIALTY WELDING: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California STATE FARM: All Fact Discovery in Manrique Suit Due Oct. 10 STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hardy Due Jan. 15, 2026 STATE FARM: Faces Dorhout Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages STATE FARM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Robin Suit Due August 4 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SUN ENERGY: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by April 28 TISHOMINGO COMMUNITY: Dunman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TOMORROW FARMS: Bored Cowb Not Real Milk, Awasum Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: EME Suit Challenges Constitutionality of MSSA UNITED STATES: Swaso Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Meyer Class Suit VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Green Due Sept. 13 VIATRIS INC: Faces Quinn Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 16 WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Partly OK'd WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class WHITESTONE HOME: Faces Douglass Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WILSON SPORTING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges WM WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Hernandez Extended to June 30 XTO ENERGY: Hearing to Exclude McArthur's Legal Opinions Tossed ********* 90 DEGREE BENEFITS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Johnson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 90 DEGREE BENEFITS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00530-AMM (N.D. Ala., April 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data in the possession of its vendor. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and unauthorized third party. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual and imminent injuries as a direct result of the Data Breach, says the suit. 90 Degree Benefits, LLC is a health care services company specializing in the administration of hospital and provider group self-funded health plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin N. Smitherman, Esq. ALABAMA LAW SERVICES LLC Statewide Title Pelham LLC 173 Tucker Road STE 201 Helena, AL 35080 Telephone: (205) 419-4414 Facsimile: (205) 419-4407 Email: jsmitherman@alabamalawservices.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Removes Aaland Suit to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL AALAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; and SAFEWAY INC., Defendants, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 25-00002-07611-3) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 9, 2025. The clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00637-MLP. The case is assigned to Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Albertsons Companies, Inc. retails food and drugs products. The Company distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, medicines, and other related goods. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron Schaer, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. Emily Williams, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 Email: schaera@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com williamsea@ballardspahr.com AUTOVEST LLC: Class Settlement in Rouzer Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANTEL ROUZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOVEST, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00537-EA (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class settlement. Autovest is a private investment company acquiring distressed consumer automobile portfolios since December 2003. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YvcKpa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. Peter A. Holland, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Rd, Ste 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com peter@hollandlawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Lifts Stay of IPERS Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06221 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2017), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order lifting the stay in this matter, and will be deciding the Plaintiffs' motion for supplemental discovery and class notice in due course. The nature of suit states antitrust litigation. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, with investment banking and auxiliary headquarters in Manhattan.[CC] BINANCE HOLDINGS: Baratta Suit Alleges Crypto RICO Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES BARATTA; JASON RAPPAPORT; DONALD DOUTY; THOMAS VIOLA; and HYACINTH AHURUONYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. d/b/a BINANCE; BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. d/b/a BINANCE.US; and CHANGPENG ZHAO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00639 (W.D. Wash., April 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme, common course of conduct and conspiracy to gain market share and generate revenues for Binance by enabling bad actors to launder cryptocurrency from the United States through Binance.com and Binance.US. To achieve these goals, the Defendants set up and managed the Binance Platform, including Binance.com and Binance.US, in a manner that willfully violated U.S. laws and regulations requiring adequate1 anti-money laundering and know your customer policies so that bad actors and U.S. sanctioned entities could create accounts, engage in cryptocurrency transactions, and deposit and withdraw cryptocurrency. As a direct result of their conspiracy and fraudulent scheme, Defendants generated massive amounts of fees and bad actors laundered cryptocurrency through the Binance Platform which was taken from Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of hacks, ransomware, and theft, the suit says. Binance Holdings Ltd. operates as a cryptocurrency exchange platform. The Company provides currency payment services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Chris N. Ryder, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com cryder@kellerrohrback.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Evan J. Kaufman, Esq. Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com johlmann@rgrdlaw.com - and - Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com - and - David C. Silver, Esq. Jason S. Miller, Esq. SILVER MILLER 4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 516-6000 Email: dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com jmiller@silvermillerlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6555 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com CALVIN JOHNSON: Court Stays McGuire Suit Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MCGUIRE, v. CALVIN JOHNSON, Case No. 3:23-cv-00165-ART-CLB (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Anne Traum entered an order staying proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. The Plaintiff McGuire sues NDOC official Calvin Johnson for depriving him of outdoor exercise at High Desert State Prison in violation of the Eighth Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court denied Defendant Johnson's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Defendant appealed that order, where it remains on appeal. The Plaintiff McGuire then moved for certification of a class. The Defendant argues that this Court should defer consideration of McGuire's motion while the Court's denial of summary judgment is on appeal. In appeals of qualified immunity, absent special circumstances, district courts are "divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal." A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hr3Sqw at no extra charge.[CC] CARNEGIE MELLON: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dermenjian Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YERVANT DERMENJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00459-CB (W.D. Pa., April 3, 2025) is a class action lawsuit seeking to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that the Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party. The Defendant consists of the undergraduate Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the College of Engineering, the School of Computer Science, the Tepper School of Business, the College of Fine Arts, the Mellon College of Science, the Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, and various graduate and professional programs. In order to provide services to its students, the Defendant acquires, stores, processes, analyzes, and otherwise utilizes Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to, first and last name, Social Security number, student identification number, date of birth, passport number, and health information. On August 25, 2023, the Defendant experienced a data security incident where unauthorized cybercriminals accessed Defendant's information systems and databases. The Defendant launched a forensic investigation that "the information that was accessed may have contained your name, social security number and/or date of birth." Through the cyber-attack, criminal cyberthieves accessed and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Based upon the investigation, more than 7,343 individuals' Private Information was affected in the Data Breach. Despite becoming certain of the Data Breach on or around Dec. 4, 2023, the Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and other Class Members until on or around January 12, 2024. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information. In addition, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive confidential Private Information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach, says the suit. The Defendant allegedly did not notify the Plaintiff and Class Members that their Private Information was subject to unauthorized access resulting from the Data Breach until on or around January 12, 2024, approximately 5 months after the Data Breach was suspected. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The Defendant is a private research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen L. Abramson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CELGENE CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Blue Cross Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, HMO LOUISANA INC., DAVID MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL & HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC. HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CENTERWELL PHARMACY, INC., v. CELGENE CORPORATION, BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ANTHONY INSOGNA, and JEROME ZELDIS, Case No. 1:23-cv-07871-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order that the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted for failure to state a claim pursuant to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and analogous state law claims. Zeldis' motion to dismiss is also granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions and close the case. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to bring Walker Process fraud claims against Zeldis and because the Court otherwise lacks jurisdiction over him, Zeldis' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. The Plaintiffs' main contention is that Celgene, along with outside patent counsel Insogna, and patent inventor Zeldis, unlawfully extended a monopoly in the market for Pomalyst Louisiana Health is a not-for-profit health insurance company that provides and manages the health benefits of more than one million members. Celgene is a biopharmaceutical company, now a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5zbsxw at no extra charge.[CC] CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, v. CLIPPER REALTY, INC., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY, CLIPPER REALTY OP L.P., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY L.P. CLIPPER REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC, CLIPPER 107 CH LLC, d/b/a CLOVER HOUSE, CLIPPER EQUITY LLC, d/b/a CLIPPER EQUITY, Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 Clipper Realty is a self-administered and self-managed real estate company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mCt4L3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CRAIGSLIST INC: Faces Kaletsky Over Alleged Online Rental Scam -------------------------------------------------------------- CANATOLE KALETSKY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CRAIGSLIST, INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. (April 3, 2025) seeks to put an end to the Defendants' unlawful, negligent and deceptive acts and/or practice in relation to an online rental scam. Allegedly, Craigslist has failed to prevent scammers from posting fraudulent listings, and Bank of America and Wells Fargo have failed to comply with federal customer identification law and FDIC regulations, thereby enabling scammers to open fraudulent bank accounts. The Plaintiff, including those similarly situated, has thus adequately set forth their claims that the Defendants have engaged, and continue to be engaging, in unlawful, negligent and deceptive acts and/or practice, and that the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, have been damaged by reason thereof. The Plaintiff demands judgment as against the Defendants, together and separately, and such other and further judgment this Honorable Court deems necessary and just. Craigslist is a privately held American company operating a classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, for sale, items wanted, services, community service, gigs, resumes, and discussion forums.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ., P.C. 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (917) 648-8784 E-mail: michael@pontonelaw.com CRUMBL FRANCHISING: Faces Jimenez Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRUMBL FRANCHISING, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00601 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Defendant has caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 2156. The Plaintiff has asked Defendant to stop contacting her on November 7, 2024, but Defendant continued to send her text messages on November 15, 2024, and December 4, 2024, asserts suit. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Classes defined as: INTERNAL DO NOT CALL CLASS "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) were sent a text message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) regarding Defendant’s goods, products or services, (3) to said person’s residential telephone number, (4) after making a request to Defendant to not receive future text messages."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com Telephone: (954) 533-4092 - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Filing in Conriquez Due June 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; C&W FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order regarding class certification deadlines, as follows: 1. All dates relating to Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification will be continued as follows: a. The Parties' certification expert disclosures shall be due on May 15, 2025. b. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on June 13, 2025. c. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be due on July 11, 2025. d. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be due on Aug. 1, 2025. Cushman & Wakefield is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O3avTD at no extra charge.[CC] CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Memoranda -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALANNA DUNN, REGINALD HAYMON, ADAM DAY, ERIC ZEIDER, CAMERON LEONARD, AND JASON WILSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00364-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for leave to: (1) file memoranda relating to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in excess of the 15-page limit for non-dispositive motions; and (2) extend the Parties' deadlines to file their respective response and reply memoranda relating to class certification by 4 days. Accordingly, the Parties jointly request that the Court extend the page limitations in order to ensure that both sides are able to present all of the relevant facts and legal arguments in a comprehensive manner. In addition, Defendant seeks 4 additional days to file its response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs do not oppose but request the same number of additional days to file their reply in support of their motion. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due to be filed on April 17, 2025. With the four day extensions they seek, the Defendant's response would be due on May 5, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ reply would be due on May 16, 2025. Cuyahoga County is a large urban county located in the northeastern part of the U.S. state of Ohio. It is situated on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the U.S.-Canada maritime border. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tZ3Ign at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kate Schwartz, Esq. Caryn Lederer, Esq. Emily Brown, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD. 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 E-mail: kschwartz@hsplegal.com clederer@hsplegal.com ebrown@hsplegal.com - and - Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Esq. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (929) 266-3971 E-mail: animashaun@pm.me - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 40 Rector Street, Floor 9 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org The Defendant is represented by: Stephen W. Funk, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA 222 South Main Street, Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 849-6602 E-mail: sfunk@ralaw.com - and - Brendan D. Healy, Esq. Jake A. Elliott, Esq. Bridget E. Dever, Esq. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 698-6447 E-mail: bhealy@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us jelliott@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us bdever@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us DAGWOODS NORTH: Maffeo Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE MAFFEO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAGWOODS NORTH, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-03705-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her renewed motion for conditional certification of e Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action for the following collectives of similarly situated Restaurant Servers: Tip Credit Notice Collective: "All Restaurant Servers who worked for the Defendant during the previous three (3) years preceding this lawsuit who were paid a reduced tip credit wage but did not receive proper notice from the Defendant that it would be taking a tip credit toward the required federal minimum wage." Dual Jobs Collective: "All Restaurant Servers who worked for Defendant who were required to perform more than occasional non-tipped work and non-serving duties during any shift and were paid a reduced tip credit wage." Uniform and Tool Reimbursement Collective: "All Restaurant Servers who worked for Defendant during the previous three (3) years who were required to purchase a uniform and tools of the trade and were not reimbursed for these expenses." Within the past 3 years Defendant has employed dozens of Restaurant Servers who perform substantially similar duties at the restaurant. These Restaurant Servers, however, have been denied federal minimum wages under FLSA. On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff, Maffeo, filed her Collective Action Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial. On Aug. 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her initial Motion for Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Ms. Maffeo began working for the Defendant as a Restaurant Server in March 2022. The Defendant operates Dagwood's Deli & Sports Bar located in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3YsA1R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com - and - Joseph Sandefur, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 11915 Plaza Drive Suite 301 Murrells Inlet, SC 29576 Telephone: (843) 973-5196 E-mail: jsandefur@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: John Connell, Esq. James Gilliam, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 104 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 271-4940 E-mail: jconnell@burr.com jgilliam@burr.com DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in G.F.F. Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.F.F., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02886-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order certifying a class of: "All noncitizens in U.S. custody in the Southern District of New York who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its implementation, who have not been given notice following the Supreme Court's decision of April 7, 2025, Trump v. JG.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, and granted a hearing." The notice to be provided shall be written in English and Spanish, the language of those sought to be expelled, and if needed, Spanish-to-English interpreters shall be provided for hearings. Each member of the class shares common issues of law and fact: the legality of the Presidential Proclamation under the AEA, and the notice and hearing required thereunder. And Petitioners' counsel can adequately represent all potential class members fairly and adequately. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qi8WH0 at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISHEA KINGDOM, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to file a sur-reply to respond to the Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their preliminary-injunction motion, particularly the six supplemental declarations filed for the first time with the Reply, if the Courts grants Plaintiffs' pending motion for leave to file those declarations. The Defendants have conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs about the requested relief, and Plaintiffs' counsel indicate that Plaintiffs consent to the motion. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J8s0lL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Yaakov M. Roth, Esq. Jean Lin, Esq. Alexander J. Yun, Esq. Elizabeth B. Layendecker, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1100 L. Street, NW Washington DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 674-0255 E-mail: Alex.Yun@usdoj.gov DOYLE & DOYLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DOYLE & DOYLE VENTURES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01849 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.purecare.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on Jan. 9, 2025, to access the Defendant's Website from Plaintiff’s home in an effort to shop for Defendant’s products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a Vintage Enamel Elephant Bracelet. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E4 SERVICES: Ipaye Class Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MAJID IPAYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. e4 Services, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01761 (E.D. Pa., April 4, 2025) seeks payment of unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Pennsylvania state law. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated consultants were knowingly and improperly classified by e4 as independent contractors, and, as a result, did not receive compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and Pennsylvania law. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as a collective action on behalf of himself and the following class of potential FLSA opt-in litigants: "All individuals who worked for e4 providing training and support to e4's clients in using electronic recordkeeping systems in the United States from April 2022 to the present and were classified as independent contractors (the "Collective Action Members"). The Plaintiff also brings this lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 as a class action on behalf of himself and the following class: "All individuals who worked for e4 providing training and support to e4's clients in using electronic recordkeeping systems in the Pennsylvania from April 2022 to the present and were classified as independent contractors (the "Pennsylvania Class Members" or "Class Members"). e4 is a Delaware corporation which coordinates staffing for information technology educational services for the healthcare industry across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Schalman-Bergen LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com EMBRY-RIDDLE: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garceau v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an endorsed order granting motion to extend class certification briefing deadlines. However, requested dates are not guaranteed and are subject to the Court's trial schedule. Further, granting certain extensions may impact other relevant deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs based in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Prescott, Arizona, United States.[CC] EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Seeks Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. GARCEAU on behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending certain briefing deadlines relating to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by 30 days. Event Current Proposed New Deadline Deadline Motion for Class Certification: April 18, 2025 May 19, 2025 Response to Motion for Class May 20, 2025 June 20, 2025 Certification: Reply to Response to Motion June 2, 2025 June 27, 2025 for Class Certification: The Plaintiff's Complaint involves claims against Defendant for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA, in connection with a 403(b) retirement plan in which Plaintiff is a participant. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that includes all Plan participants and beneficiaries from April 2018 to the present. Defendant anticipates it will oppose class certification. Currently, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on April 18, 2025, with Defendant’s response due on May 20, 2025, and Plaintiff’s reply due on June 2, 2025. Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9MzEjc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gdesane@wfclaw.com ER CARPENTER: Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing to June 15 Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAROYA MARROW, v. E.R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. D/B/A CARPENTER CO., Case No. 8:23-cv-02959-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and extend the deadline for class certification to June 15, 2025. On Feb. 26, 2025, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order. The current deadline for Class Certification is May 15, 2025. Due to Defendant transitioning to new counsel, and the need for additional discovery prior to the Class Certification deadline, the parties request a one-month extension to the deadline for Class Certification up to and including June 15, 2025. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and Plaintiff has scheduled a 30(b)(6) deposition for May 1. The motion for extension of time is not made for purposes of delaying the ultimate resolution of this case. Rather, the requested extension of time is necessary to allow the parties to adequately prepare to meet the deadline for Class Certification. No party will be prejudiced by this extension of time. E.R. Carpenter offers manufactures resins, synthetic rubbers, and fibers. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Cuwyj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean P. Walsh, Esq. Christopher Michalik, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-2638 Facsimile: (904) 360-6338 E-mail: swalsh@mcguirewoods.com cmichalick@mcguirewoods.com EVOLVE BANK: Faces Justus Over Mismanagement of Customers' Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN JUSTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, an Arkansas bank; EVOLVE BANCORP, INC., an Arkansas limited liability company; and LINEAGE BANK, a Tennessee bank, Case No. 2:25-cv-02385 (W.D. Tenn., April 4, 2025) arises from the negligent monitoring and mismanagement of funds belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members who entrusted cash deposits to one or more of the four Defendants via use of various financial technology platforms. In this case, FinTechs used the Defendants for their banking services, and Defendants in turn used a third-party company named Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. to open accounts, process transactions, and manage account statements and ledgers for any FinTech companies working with them, and ultimately for their end users. The Defendants' use of Synapse and failure to adequately monitor and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' funds in their control led to significant ledger discrepancies in account balances. These irregularities were materially inaccurate and, as a result, could not be used as the basis for distributing funds to the end users. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and Class Members had their funds lost, stolen, or misplaced, while no single Defendant took responsibility for their failures. Further, Defendants have refused to return funds to these end users, leaving thousands of customers, like Plaintiff and Class Members, without access to their funds, says the suit. Plaintiff Justus is a citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina. He was present in South Carolina at the time he signed up for an account with the FinTech Yotta and deposited funds. On May 11, 2025, Plaintiff Justus attempted to withdraw his funds, but the transfer was cancelled. The Plaintiff requested the withdrawal, his account balance showed $4,420.50. Months Later, Plaintiff Justus received $3.46 in reconciliation. The Plaintiff appealed that deposit and the appeal was rejected. Evolve Bank is a bank chartered under the laws of Arkansas with twenty-six locations in ten states. Evolve Bancorp, Inc., is a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of Arkansas whose corporate headquarters and principal place of business is located at 301 Shoppingway Boulevard, West Memphis, Arkansas. Lineage Bank is a bank chartered under the laws of Tennessee whose corporate headquarters and principal place of business is located at 3359 Aspen Grove Drive, Franklin, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Miles M. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Securities Suit Gets Initial 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 court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the securities class action filed on December 13, 2021, against the company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned "Mark Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-06637. On January 13, 2025, the court entered final judgment approving the settlement. Plaintiff filed said complaint on February 4, 2021. 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, 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. Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company focused on developing nucleic acid therapies targeting ribonucleic acid against validated targets. EZ SHOP: Miranda Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EZ SHOP OF 170TH ST., INC. (d/b/a EZ Shop ), and Vi Doe, Case No. 1:25-cv-02839 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Miranda and other members of the FLSA Class who are and/or have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have been subject to Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing and refusing to pay them the required overtime pay of one and one-half times his regular rates for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek a class action under Rule 23 and seek certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from December 22, 2022, until March 31, 2025. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a retail store located at 122 E. 170th Street, Bronx, New York 10452 under the name "EZ Shop."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tighe Due Nov. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Tighe v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00155-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding the Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion for Nov. 21, 2025 Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for the Defendant to File Jan. 9, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply Mar. 30, 2026 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report: Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Court's Standing Order, all merits discovery is stayed. The Court further directs the parties to engage in a phased discovery plan. Phase 1 shall consist of pre-certification discovery to determine the scope and size of the putative class, as well as whether Plaintiff is able to meet the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Phase 2 shall consist of merits discovery. Ferrellgas is an American supplier of propane. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pk60hl at no extra charge.[CC] FLOATME CORP: Burrison Sues Over Illegal Cash Advance Product ------------------------------------------------------------- AARON BURRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOATME, CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10885-DJC (D. Mass., April 10, 2025) is an action seeking to protect active-duty military service members from FMC's predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in violation of the MLA, the Defendant uses its cash advance product to saddle Covered Members with charges that, on average, yield a military annual percentage rate ("MAPR") well in excess of the MLA's legal limit. FloatMe Corp. is a developer of a financial wellness platform offering an app to cover cash gaps and improve finances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 Email: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Dlin Suit Removed to D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Russell Dlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.P., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. C-16-CV-25-000846 was removed from the Maryland Circuit Court for Prince George's County, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01215-PX. The Plaintiff alleges here that Greystar potentially violated the rights of more than a million tenants nationwide each month for years by charging junk fees. Plaintiff also alleges that Greystar neglected to refund members of the Maryland Security Deposit Class interest on the security deposits of such tenants. In the ad damnum clause (or elsewhere in the Complaint), Plaintiff makes no attempt to quantify the number of class members or the magnitude of damages for each class member.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ayman Rizkalla, Esq. Noam Fischman, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 750 Ninth St., N.W., Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: 202-824-1750 Fax: 202-393-5959 HARD EIGHT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miran Due April 17, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sean Miran, v. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00807-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend May 23, 2025 Pleadings or Add Parties:0 Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion for Apr. 17, 2026 Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition May 1, 2026 to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply in May 8, 2026 Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report: Class Certification Hearing: June 5, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Hard Eight is a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p17lCB at no extra charge.[CC] HOFFENMER INC: Newell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoffenmer Inc. The case is styled as Jourey Newell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hoffenmer Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03961 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hoffenmer -- https://www.hoffenmer.com/ -- specializes in DOT form processing and FMCSA compliance services for the transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com HUMANA INC: Court Certifies Class in Elliot ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an order that: -- Humana motion to file sur-reply is granted. -- Elliot's motion to certify class is granted but with the class definition modified by the Court in this order. The Complaint shall be maintained as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) by the Plaintiff, David Elliot, as Class Representative, and Plaintiff's Counsel, James S. Wertheim, Michael C. Hartmere, and Brittany N. Clark, as Class Counsel on behalf of the class defined as: "All persons or entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Humana placed, or caused to be placed, a call (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a current account holder of Humana or person who consented to receive calls on behalf of an account holder (3) in connection with which Humana used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) four years from the filing of this action through the date of class certification." -- The Plaintiff's counsel shall file a proposed class notification form which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), together with a statement describing the method by which the notice will be provided to class members and a list of persons to whom the notice will be sent. The deadline for this submission will be discussed and set at the pretrial conference. The Court sees no reason why review of Humana's own data and use of claim forms and affidavits cannot reliably ascertain the class and determine who qualifies as a class member. The process for class identification is administratively feasible and effective. The class definition is approved as amended by the Court as noted above, and the class is ascertainable. Elliot sued Humana for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Elliot alleges Humana telephoned him numerous times despite not being a Humana customer and after being informed that Humana had the wrong number. Humana is an American for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxmlem at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Continued ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order granting joint stipulation to further continue deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by 60 days and continue the discovery deadline by 45 days. The Court has considered the parties' stipulation to further continue the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by sixty days and continue the discovery deadline by forty-five days, and orders that the parties' Stipulation is granted. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on or before July 1, 2025. The parties shall complete discovery by Sept. 15, 2025. Hyundai consumers a technology-rich lineup of cars, SUVs, and electrified vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jHMLb7 at no extra charge.[CC] IAEDP FOUNDATION: More Time to File Amended Complaint Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY ZELIKOVSKY, PsyD, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EATING DISORDER PROFESSIONALS' (IAEDP) FOUNDATION, INC., a California Corporation, BONNIE HARKEN, JOEL JAHRAUS, DENA CABRERA, and RALPH CARSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01474-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension to file amended complaint and motion for class certification. On April 8, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendants' counsel regarding the merits of this motion. Defendants’ counsel does not oppose same. Therefore, Plaintiff submits her motion for the Court's consideration. International Association provides first-quality education and high-level training standards to an international multidisciplinary group of various healthcare treatment providers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=66jhV9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven R. Dunn, Esq. DUNN LAW FIRM 5830 Preston Fairways Dallas, TX 75252 Telephone: (214) 769-7810 E-mail: steven@dunnlawfirm.net IDEAL CONCEPTS: Faces Morris Class Suit Over Prerecorded Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHONNICE MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDEAL CONCEPTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03672 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2025) is a class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of Ideal Concepts, in negligently and/or willfully using prerecorded messages to call Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited prerecorded calls without the requisite express written consent. On Dec. 1, 2024, the Defendant caused a prerecorded voice message to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 1769 from 312-748-0097. The prerecorded messages included a prerecorded voice which offered to provide health insurance information to Plaintiff. When Plaintiff listened to the voicemail, she was easily able to determine that it was a prerecorded message, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Defendant is a corporation whose principal office is located in Pennsylvania. It directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Telephone: (954) 400-4713 INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Brooks Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Renee Marie Brooks, Marie Morgan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10206 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 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00508-NR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. 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: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 S. Main St., 3rd Flr. West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 Fax: (860) 920-5242 Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.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: Petzel Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deane Petzel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10191 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 11, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00505 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: David K. Lietz, Esq. 888 16th Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 349-9869 Fax: (202) 349-9867 Email: dlietz@lietzlaw.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 JAFET TILE: Delcid Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIA DELCID ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JAFET TILE MARBLE CORP. (d/b/a JAFET TILE), FORMIA MARBLE STONE INC (d/b/a FORMIA MARBLE AND STONE), JAFET MILBER MARTINEZ, and FILIPPO BERTA,, Case No. 1:25-cv-02763 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Delcid and other members of the FLSA Class who are and/or have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have been subject to Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing and refusing to pay them the required overtime pay of one and one-half times his regular rates for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek a class action under Rule 23 and seek certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of the Defendants. Ms. Delcid is an adult individual residing in Bronx County, New York. She was employed by Defendants at "Jafet Tile Marble Corp. from August 2021 until July 2024. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Tile installation subcontractor, located at 143-09 101st Avenue, Jamaica, New York 11435 under the name "JAFET TILE MARBLE CORP."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JAMES KOUTOULAS: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER and SHAWN R. KEY, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Case No. 6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered an order denying the Defendants James Koutoulas and LGBCoin, LTD's Motion for Reconsideration on Order Granting Partial Class Certification and Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Motion for Reconsideration and Rule 23(f) Petition. Accordingly, the Defendants do not explain how the Court clearly erred, nor do they present any discussion as to the Court's analysis or application of Rule 23. The Defendants, instead, rehash their arguments regarding whether LGBCoin is a security. However, in the Class Certification Order, the Court explained why it declined analysis of such arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on April 1, 2022. After several amended complaints, motions to dismiss, and a stay of discovery, the Court narrowed the claims against Defendants James Koutoulas and LGBCoin, LTD in its Order dated March 29, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xfoo1w at no extra charge.[CC] JAYDEE VENTURES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber Due Oct. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. JAYDEE VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00028-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: The court held a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on April 9, 2025. All parties were represented by counsel. The court set the schedule for this case and advised the parties that their conduct throughout this case is governed by this pretrial conference order and attachments. The parties and their attorneys must at all times treat everyone involved in this lawsuit with courtesy and consideration. The parties must attend diligently to their obligations in this lawsuit and must reasonably accommodate each other in all matters so as to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of each proceeding in this matter as required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 1. Failure to do so shall have consequences. 1. Motions for class certification and proponent's disclosure of class certification experts: Oct. 3, 2025 Opposition and respondent's expert disclosures: Nov. 19, 2025 Reply and Daubert motions: Jan. 5, 2026 Responses to Daubert motions: Feb. 2, 2026 Replies in support of Daubert motions: Feb. 16, 2026 2. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: June 30, 2026 3. Discovery Cutoff: Nov. 6, 2026 4. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Nov. 20, 2026 Objections: Dec. 11, 2026 5. First Final Pretrial Conference: Dec. 29, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. Second Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 5, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. 6. Trial: Jan. 11, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ROK5r at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN CARNEY: Gibbs Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DION D. GIBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN CARNEY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01301-SB (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the Settlement Class (as defined in the accompany Opening Brief) as: "all persons who were incarcerated at SCI from March 1, 2020, or are incarcerated, or in the future will be so incarcerated, at SCI," and -- appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbJD3N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas D. Herrmann, Esq. James H. S. Levine, Esq. Kenneth A. Listwak, Esq. Adam Dixon, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP Hercules Plaza, Suite 1000 1313 Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1709 Telephone: (302) 777-6500 Facsimile: (302) 421-8390 E-mail: douglas.herrmann@troutman.com james.levine@troutman.com ken.listwak@troutman.com adam.dixon@troutman.com The Defendant is represented by: Stacey Bonvetti, Esq. STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 102 W. Water Street Dover, DE 19904 Telephone: (302) 257-3267 E-mail: stacey.bonvetti@delaware.gov KORRO BIO INC: Dismissal of Quinones Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Korro Bio, Inc. (formerly Frequency Therapeutics, 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 July 2, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion and judgment affirming dismissal of consolidated lawsuit captioned "Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al." in its entirety. On July 18, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts requesting that the court vacate its prior order and judgment dismissing the lawsuit. The company filed an opposition to that motion on August 8, 2024, and on November 1, 2024 the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the plaintiff's request that the court vacate its prior order and judgment dismissing the lawsuit. Plaintiff did not file an appeal to date. On June 3, 2021 and June 22, 2021, purported stockholders of Frequency filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and its Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director, David Lucchino. On March 21, 2022, they were consolidated into a single lawsuit, "Quinones et al. v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. et al." and on May 16, 2022, the company's Chief Development Officer, Dr. Carl Le Bel, was added as a defendant. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), due to allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions about the company's Phase 2a clinical trial (FX-322-202) for its product candidate FX-322 in the company's public disclosures between October 29, 2020 and March 22 ,2021. The lawsuit sought, among other things, damages in connection with Frequency's allegedly artificially inflated stock price between October 29, 2020 and March 22, 2021 as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2023, Frequency's motion to dismiss was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety. On April 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit from the order dismissing the lawsuit. On August 2, 2023, plaintiff-appellant submitted its opening brief to the First Circuit. Frequency filed its response brief on October 27, 2023, and plaintiff-appellant filed its reply brief on December 14, 2023. The First Circuit heard oral argument on January 8, 2024. Korro is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company into the discovery, development and commercialization of genetic medicines based on editing RNA. KROGER CO: Kirkbride Plaintiffs Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order: -- denying the Defendant's Daubert motions to exclude Colin Weir's expert report, Susan Hayes' expert report, and Colin Weir's rebuttal report; -- granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the Defendant's motion to file its sur- rebuttal expert report under seal and motion to seal its sur- rebuttal expert report; and -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to admit the expert testimony of Colin B. Weir and Dr. Susan A. Hayes, and the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify the Ohio Medicare Class, the Ohio Caremark Class, and the Texas Caremark Class. The Plaintiffs Judy Kirkbride and Beeta Lewis are consumers in Ohio and Texas that purchased prescription drugs from The Kroger Company in the last several years. They allege that Kroger, through a deceptive pricing scheme, overcharged them for prescription drugs by misreporting the "usual and customary" (U&C) prices for the Plaintiffs' medications, which resulted in higher copayments. The Plaintiffs originally proposed the following four subclasses where insured customers paid an amount more than the Savings Club price: (i) a class of Ohio customers who purchased prescription drugs using Medicare supplement insurance; (ii) a class of Ohio customers who purchased prescription drugs using insurance through the PBM Caremark, LLC; (iii) a class of Texas customers who purchased prescription drugs using insurance through the PBM Caremark; and (iv) a class of Texas customers who purchased a prescription drug using insurance through the PBM Express Scripts, Inc." Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XJ7ctG at no extra charge.[CC] LAMB WESTON: Still Defending Price-Fixing Suit ---------------------------------------------- In November 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and a number of other producers of frozen potato products alleging violations of antitrust laws. Additional class action complaints were later filed in the same court, based on similar allegations, bringing antitrust claims on behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers, commercial and institutional indirect purchasers, and end-consumer indirect purchasers. Some complaints name a data provider and a trade association as defendants, in addition to producers of frozen potato products. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning at least as early as January 1, 2021, the defendants conspired to raise the price of frozen potato products above competitive levels in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating prices of frozen potato products and imposing lockstep price increases, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices and production. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaints for each putative class have been ordered to be consolidated and amended. Class actions based on similar allegations have also been filed in Canada, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Quebec. "We believe these complaints lack merit and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. Given the preliminary stage of the proceedings, we are currently unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the range of potential loss, if any, that may result," the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 23, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. LIBERTY RESOURCES: Massey Class Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ IDAROSE MASSEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LIBERTY RESOURCES INC. (dba "Liberty Community Connections"), Case No. 2:25-cv-01758-JS (E.D. Pa., April 4, 2025) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Service Coordinator from 2022 until October 2024 and was paid an annual salary. The Plaintiff, like other Service Coordinators, regularly worked over 40 hours per week. Specifically, Plaintiff estimates that she worked approximately 50 hours during a typical week. They did not receive any overtime premium compensation for hours worked over 40 per week, asserts the suit. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Service Coordinators was undertaken willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA and PMWA provisions, the suit says. LIBERTY RESOURCES INC., dba Liberty Community Connections, is a home health care service in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Files Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On July 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court of Minnesota against Lifecore Biomedical, Inc., and certain of its named executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's stockholders between October 7, 2020, and March 19, 2024 regarding the Company's financial results, internal controls, remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. On November 15, 2024, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and their respective counsel. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 24, 2025 which contained substantially similar allegations and claims as those set forth in the original complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 25, 2025. The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Any potential loss arising from this claim is not currently probable or estimable, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 23, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. is a fully integrated contract development and manufacturing organization that offers highly differentiated capabilities in the development, fill and finish of sterile injectable pharmaceutical products in syringes, vials and cartridges, including complex formulations. LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Isakov Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lobel's Of New York, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02805 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.lobels.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Lobel's Of New York 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. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services, asserts the suit. Lobels.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Lobel's Of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law LSKD US: Reyes Class Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ NATHALIE REYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LSKD US, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02813 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.us.lskd.co, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, LSKD 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. Us.lskd.co provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by LSKD. [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 MAC BROTHERS: Petosa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Sally Petosa, Nicole Lockett Guida, and Anna Mastrantoni on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MAC BROTHERS II LLC, d/b/a PANINI GRILL, PETER MACRI, and SALVATORE MACRI, Case No. 1:25-cv-02050 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants knew that nonpayment of minimum wage, nonpayment of overtime, and misappropriation of tips would economically injure Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, and violated federal and state laws. The Defendants were not entitled to pay Plaintiffs this lower rate, because they did not give Plaintiffs notice of the tip credit under New York law. The Plaintiffs often worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs were required to clock out when the kitchen closed, but then had to continue working for close to an hour to perform cleaning side work. The Plaintiffs were not paid at all for this off-the-clock time, which was often overtime. In addition, for the overtime that Defendants did pay, they did not pay the full minimum wage, because, as described above, they inappropriately relied on a tip credit, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as servers. MAC BROTHERS II LLC a New York limited liability company that owns and operates Panini Grill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 MALLINCKRODT PLC: Status Conference Adjourned in Continental Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al, v. MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al, Case No. 3:23-cv-03662 (D.N.J., Filed July 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order adjourning the telephone status conference. -- On or before April 17, 2025, the parties shall file via CM/ECF a letter apprising the Court of the outcome of mediation. If the matter does not resolve at mediation, the letter shall include an agreed-upon amended schedule for the exchange of class certification expert reports and a briefing schedule for class certification motion. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Mallinckrodt is an American-Irish domiciled manufacturer of specialty pharmaceuticals, generic drugs and imaging agents.[CC] MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and RUTH PEREZ, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC. and CNTP MCB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order referring Frankiewicz action to the designated Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Inquest After Default/Damages Hearing -- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and Recommendation). The Court is referring this action to Magistrate Judge Willis for General Pretrial Purposes, Plaintiffs' anticipated briefing on decertification of the class, and any subsequent motions pertaining to class certification or default judgment, including any damages inquest after default if necessary. Manhattan Cryobank is an andrology laboratory and reproductive tissue bank. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iBtlGz at no extra charge.[CC] MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Bid for Default Judgment Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and RUTH PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC. and CNTP MCB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment: -- The Plaintiffs are directed to file a brief not to exceed 15 pages no later than April 22, 2025, addressing why the Court should not sua sponte decertify the class. -- The lack of any timely objections, in light of the clear notice provided in the Report, precludes appellate review of this decision. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on July 6, 2020, against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2201. The deadline to object to the Report has passed and no party has filed any objection. The Court has therefore reviewed the Report for clear error. The Court finds that the Report's reasoning is sound, grounded in fact and law, and not clearly erroneous. The Court is also equally troubled by the documents submitted in support of default judgment. Manhattan Cryobank is an andrology laboratory and reproductive tissue bank. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8PQ7ks at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2566: Cellucci's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel Gorton entered an order denying the Plaintiff Anthony Cellucci's bid for class certification. The Multi-district litigation (MDL) arises from the meltdown of a sprawling, hybrid, Ponzi-pyramid scheme operated by Telexfree. Telexfree was a billion-dollar fraud scheme that operated from 2012 to 2014. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bI2ixx at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL KORS: Binder Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Demetra Binder et al., v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03941-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring the Binder action to the Magistrate judge for the following purpose: -- Dispositive motion (i.e. motion requiring a Report and Recommendation). -- Motion for class certification. Michael Kors operates designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yd1soi at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL KORS: Filing for Class Cert. in Binder Suit Due July 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Binder et al., v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03941-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order granting DEH joint letter motion to continue class certification deadlines: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due July 14, 2025. -- The Defendants' opposition shall be due Aug. 28, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be due Oct. 6, 2025. Michael Kors operates designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0WwWO2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Connor J. Porzio, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: mattz@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com connor@lcllp.com gary@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: James B. Saylor, Esq. Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-5052 Facsimile: (212) 589-9509 E-mail: jsaylor@kelleydrye.com gcastello@kelleydrye.com MOHELA: Bid to Dismiss Maldonado Class Action Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME MALDONADO, et al., v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI (MOHELA), Case No. 3:24-cv-07850-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying motion to dismiss. Accordingly, MOHELA is not entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of the state of Missouri under the Ninth Circuit's Kohn test. Derivative Federal Contractor Immunity. MOHELA is also not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity as a federal contractor. MOHELA claims that it operated under two federal contracts during the class period, the USDS contract and the DL contract. MOHELA waived any claim of derivative immunity for work performed under the USDS contract. Actual Harm under the CCRAA. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they suffered "actual damage" under the CCRAA. MOHELA's request to strike class allegations is denied. Any administrability concerns regarding the overlap between this case and the Sweet class action settlement can be handled at class certification. MOHELA is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EepMPa at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Bradley Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Bradley, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 6:25-cv-06149 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-03181-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: Brian A. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C. 2354 Wehrle Drive Buffalo, NY 14221 Phone: (844) 716-4653 Email: bg@goldsteingreco.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Buccarelli Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joelle Gabrielli Buccarelli, as Executor of the Estate of Joseph Gabrielli (Deceased), and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00248 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-03184-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: Carrato Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Carrato, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00246 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-03182-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 MSC INDUSTRIAL: Faces Suit Over Reclassification of Shares ---------------------------------------------------------- On March 14, 2025, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund against MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc., and certain officers, directors and shareholders of the Company. The action is purportedly brought by MCRHC individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, as a class action or in the alternative, as a derivative action on behalf of the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties for actions related to the Reclassification and seeks disgorgement, unspecified damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as the court may deem proper. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2024, the Company completed its previously announced reclassification (the "Reclassification") of the common stock to eliminate the Class B Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share. At the closing of the Reclassification, each share of Class B Common Stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time was reclassified, exchanged and converted into 1.225 shares of Class A Common Stock. At this time, the ultimate cost to resolve this matter is not reasonably estimable, however the Company believes it has substantial defenses to the alleged claims and intends to vigorously defend itself, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended March 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. NAILS & SPA: Lee Loses Bid for Conditional Status of Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHONG SUK LEE, on behalf of herself and a class and collective of similarly situated individuals, v. NAILS & SPA TOGETHER, INC., NAILS & SPA ON SECOND AVENUE, INC., d/b/a NAILS & SPA TOGETHER NAIL SALON, HEON MEE CHANG, HO SIK CHANG, and CHYRIM CHOI, in their individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:24-cv-02549-AT-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Henry Ricardo entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification. The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a collective of similarly situated individuals who were employed by Defendants as cosmetologists, nail technicians, skin care technicians, eyelash extension technicians, and other similar positions during the FLSA Collective Period. The Plaintiff describes her job duties as a nail technician, the hours she worked, and the wages she received. However, she does not describe the job duties, hours worked, and wages paid of employees working as cosmetologists, skincare technicians, eyelash extension technicians, and other similar positions which she did not specify. Therefore, to the extent the proposed collective extends to cosmetologists, skincare technicians, eyelash extension technicians, and other positions, Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification is denied. Because the Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing to merit the conditional collective certification, the Court need not reach the other issues raised in the motion, regarding the FLSA Collective Period, the substance of the proposed Notice, and equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff Lee filed her original complaint on April 3, 2024, an amended complaint on April 22, 2024, and a second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which added Heon Mee Chang and Ho Sik Chang as Defendants, on Oct. 23, 2024. The Defendants answered the SAC on Nov. 12, 2024. Nails & Spa Together Inc is a nail salon. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iyNGQ1 at no extra charge.[CC] NEXTPLAT CORP: Continues to Defend Weisberg Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------ NextPlat Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Weisberg class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On October 28, 2024, Alan Jay Weisberg, the former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Progressive Care Inc. ("RXMD"), filed a putative class action suit on behalf of himself and all other former RXMD stockholders against NextPlat, Charles M. Fernandez, the Chief Executive Officer and a director of NextPlat, and Rodney Barreto, a director of NextPlat. The complaint purports to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by NextPlat and Messrs. Fernandez and Barreto in connection with the merger of RXMD with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of NextPlat (the "Merger"), which Merger was completed on October 1, 2024 following approval by the stockholders of each of NextPlat and RXMD in stockholder meetings held on September 13, 2024 by NextPlat and RXMD, respectively. Among other things, the complaint asserts that the consideration paid to Mr. Weisberg and the other RXMD stockholders in connection with the Merger was insufficient. The monetary relief requested in the complaint includes compensatory and rescissory damages in an unspecified dollar amount. The complaint is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The caption is Alan Jay Weisberg v. Charles M. Fernandez, Rodney Barreto and Nextplat Corp., and the case number is C.A. No. 20. 24-1097-MTZ. The Company's management does not believe that the Weisberg's claim is meritorious and plans to vigorously defend against the suit. The Company is in the process of preparing a response to the complaint and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. NextPlat Corp. operates as an e-commerce platform company. The Company focuses on various multiple sectors and markets for physical and digital assets. NextPlat also offers e-commerce communications services division offering voice, data, tracking, and IoT solutions.[BN] PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kraker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIHOMIL KRAKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00555-SB (D. Or., April 4, 2025) is a class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the personally identifiable information maintained by Pacific Residential Mortgage, On Feb. 10, 2025, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and similar information. In the Notice of Data Incident letter, the Defendant sent to Plaintiff and Class Members on or around March 25, 2025, Defendant explains: -- What Happened On Feb. 10, 2025, Pac Res detected that a ransomware lockdown of some of our systems was carried out by cybercriminals. We promptly hired a cybersecurity firm to secure our environment and conduct an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. -- What Information Was Involved We determined that your name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, financial account information, and similar information may have been impacted or accessible. -- What We Are Doing Pac Res takes the privacy and security of the personal information within its control seriously and continues to investigate and closely monitor the situation. Further, As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably spent mitigating or remedying the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their personal information, says the suit. In addition, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII -- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security measures necessary to protect the PII of those affected, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to unauthorized access by an unknown third party. PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, LLC provides home loan products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, Fl 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com PDX NATURALS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Calcano Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PDX NATURALS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02842 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.hennacolorlab.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant operates the Henna Color Lab online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment. The Defendant's interactive Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: hair care products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Defendant's interactive Website advertises, markets and/or operates in the State of New York and across the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Continues to Defend Buenos Aires Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In 2018, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. was served with an arbitral claim filed by Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, currently named Consumidores Damnificados Asociacion Civil, (the "Association") against the Company and other individuals and legal entities, before the "Tribunal de Arbitraje General de la Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires" ("Arbitral Tribunal"). Among other issues, the Association alleged the Company's liability for a supposed loss of market value of our shares in Argentina, due to proceedings related to Lava Jato. In June 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal decided that the arbitral claim should be considered withdrawn due to the lack of payment of the arbitral fee by the Association. The Association has filed appeals that were rejected by the court of appeals in November 2019. The Association has appealed to the Argentinian Supreme Court which denied the appeal, and the Association filed a new appeal to the Argentine Supreme Court, which was also denied. As a result, the arbitration was sent to the Arbitration Court. We are unable to provide a reliable estimate of the potential loss in this arbitration. At the same time, the Association also filed a class action before the Civil and Commercial Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, against the Company, which the Company became aware of in April 2023. The Association claims Petrobras bears responsibility for an alleged loss of market value of its securities in Argentina, as a result of allegations made within the scope of the Lava Jato Operation and its effects on the company's financial statements prior to 2015. After Petrobras presented its defense in August 2023, on May 14, 2024, the Court granted Petrobras' request and ordered the commencement of a class certification incident. A decision regarding this matter is still pending and the other procedural and merit defenses raised by Petrobras will be examined at a later stage of the proceeding. The Company denies such allegations and will vigorously defend itself against the accusations made by the Association, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Netherlands ------------------------------------------------------------------ On January 23, 2017, Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation ("Foundation") filed a class action in the Netherlands, at the District Court of Rotterdam, against Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, Petrobras International Braspetro B.V. (PIB BV), Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), Petrobras Oil & Gas B.V. (PO&G) and some former Petrobras managers. The Foundation alleges that it represents the interests of an unidentified group of investors and asserts that, based on the facts revealed by the Lava-Jato Operation, the defendants acted illegally before the investors. On May 26, 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam decided that the class action should proceed and that the arbitration clause of Petrobras' bylaws does not prevent the Company's shareholders from having access to the Dutch Judiciary and have their interests represented by the "Foundation". However, the interests of investors who have already started arbitration against Petrobras or who are parties to legal proceedings in which the applicability of the arbitration clause has been definitively recognized are excluded from the scope of the action. On July 26, 2023, the Court issued an intermediary decision on the merits which provided the following understanding: (i) the requests made against PIB BV, PO&G and certain former members of the Company's management were rejected; (ii) the Court declared that Petrobras and the PGF acted illegally in relation to their investors, although the Court expressed it does not consider itself sufficiently informed about relevant aspects of Brazilian, Argentine and Luxembourger laws to definitively decide on the merits of the action; and iii) the alleged rights under Spanish legislation are prescribed. Regarding the aspects of Brazilian, Argentine and Luxembourger laws considered relevant to the sentence, the Court ordered the production of technical evidence by Brazilian and Argentine experts and by Luxembourger authorities. On October 30, 2024, after the parties' comments on the technical evidence, the Court issued a ruling, in which it broadly accepted Petrobras' arguments regarding the requests presented in favor of the Company's shareholders and considered that: i) in accordance with Brazilian legislation, all damages alleged by the Foundation qualify as indirect and are not subject to compensation; and ii) according to Argentine law, shareholders cannot, in principle, request compensation from the Company for damages alleged by the Foundation, and the Foundation has not demonstrated that it represents a sufficient number of investors who could, in theory, present such a request. Therefore, the Court rejected the Foundation's allegations in accordance with Brazilian and Argentine law, which resulted in the rejection of all requests made in favor of shareholders. With respect to certain bondholders, the Court considered that Petrobras and PGF acted illegally under Luxembourg law, while PGF acted illegally under Dutch law. Furthermore, the Court confirmed the following issues of the decision released to the market on July 26, 2023: (i) rejection of the allegations against PIBBV, POG BV and the former CEOs of Petrobras, Maria das Graças Silva Foster and José Sérgio Gabrielli de Azevedo; and (ii) prescription of requests formulated in accordance with Spanish legislation. The Foundation and PGF have appealed the ruling and previous interim decisions and will have the opportunity to substantiate their own appeals and respond to each other's appeals, before judgment by the Court of Appeal in The Hague. Petrobras will still be able to present its own appeal, within the deadline for responding to the Foundation's appeal. In relation to bondholders, the Foundation cannot claim compensation under the class action, which will depend not only on a final result favorable to the interests of the investors in the class action, but also on the filing of subsequent actions by or on behalf of the investors by the Foundation itself, an opportunity in which Petrobras will be able to offer all the defenses already presented in the class action and others that it deems appropriate, including in relation to the occurrence and quantification of any damages that must be proven by the potential beneficiaries of the decision or by the Foundation. Any compensation for the alleged damages will only be determined by court decisions in subsequent actions. This class action involves complex issues and the outcome is subject to substantial uncertainties, which depend on factors such as: the scope of the arbitration clause of the Petrobras Bylaws, the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, the scope of the agreement that ended the Class Action in the United States, the Foundation's legitimacy to represent the interests of investors, the several laws applicable to the case, the information obtained from the production phase of evidence, the expert analyses, the timetable to be defined by the Court and the judicial decisions on key issues of the process, possible appeals, including before the Dutch Supreme Court, as well as the fact that the Foundation seeks only a declaratory decision in this class action. The Company, based on the assessments of its advisors, considers that there are not enough indicative elements to qualify the universe of potential beneficiaries of a possible final decision unfavorable to Petrobras' interests, nor to quantify the supposedly compensable damages. Thus, it is currently not possible to predict whether the Company will be liable for the effective payment of damages in any future individual claims, as this analysis will depend on the outcome of these complex procedures. In addition, it is not possible to know which investors will be able to bring subsequent individual actions related to this matter against Petrobras. Furthermore, the claims formulated are broad, cover a multi-year period and involve a wide variety of activities and, in the current scenario, the impacts of such claims are highly uncertain. The uncertainties inherent in all of these issues affect the value and duration of final resolution of this action. As a result, Petrobras is unable to estimate an eventual loss resulting from this action. However, Petrobras continues to reject the Foundation's allegations, in relation to which it was considered a victim by all Brazilian authorities, including the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court. Petrobras and its subsidiaries reject the allegations made by the Foundation and will continue to defend themselves vigorously, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. PRINCESS ANNE: Donovan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON DONOVAN, GEORGE NELSON, JR., VINCENT ESPOSITO, MATTHEW MCCORMICK, FRANKIE PRUITT, SEANNA HINMAN, RONALD HINMAN, BRITTANY GILLESPIE, and YELITZA DAVIS-HERNANDEZ v. PRINCESS ANNE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:25-cv-01114-MJM (D. Md., April 3, 2025) seeks recovery earned and unpaid overtime premium wages and unlawfully withheld / unreimbursed wage deductions or kickbacks against Defendant under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law. In or about September 2024, the Maryland Department of Labor & Licensing commenced an administrative investigation on behalf of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals for the purpose of recovering earned and unpaid wages and damages sought by Plaintiffs against Defendant in this action. The statutory recovery period for the Plaintiffs' recovery of earned and unpaid wages and damages sought by Plaintiffs against Defendant in this action should be equitably or administratively tolled to relate back three years from the commencement of the DLLR investigation, to include the period September 2021, through the present. The Plaintiffs are adult residents of Maryland and Delaware. By acting as the Plaintiffs and affixing their names to the caption in this Complaint, each Plaintiff provides this Court with his or her written consent confirming his or her intent to prosecute his or her claims against Defendant for recovery of earned unpaid wages and damages under the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL. PRINCESS ANNE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY is a fire station in Princess Anne, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sneed Due Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNEED, et al., v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a Scheduling Order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings: June 6, 2025 Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Oct. 30, 2025 class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Defendants' Jan. 15, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: Feb. 27, 2026 Class certification reply due: April 24, 2026 Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rbucPR at no extra charge.[CC] RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Hicks Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEANNA HICKS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, V. RALEIGH OPHTHALMOLOGY, P.C., a North Carolina professional corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00465-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Myers II entered an order that the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied in part as to Count 1, and denied in part as moot as to Counts 2 and 3. -- Because the Plaintiff has abandoned Counts 2 and 3, those claims are dismissed. -- The Defendant raises three arguments to support dismissal of Plaintiffs first claim, which alleges that Defendant placed prerecorded calls to Plaintiff without her consent in violation of 4 7 U.S.C. section 227(b)(l)(A)(iii). None of Defendant's arguments warrant dismissal at this stage of the proceedings. The Plaintiff instituted this federal action on August 14, 2024. She brings three claims for relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"): ( 1) prerecorded calls without consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(l)(A)(iii), (2) telephone solicitation to an individual on the Do Not Call registry in violation of 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c), and (3) failure to maintain a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls in violation of 4 7 C.F .R. section 64.1200( d). The Plaintiff also makes allegations on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals and seeks class certification. Raleigh Ophthalmology provides exceptional comprehensive and subspecialty eye care to the Raleigh, NC and surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bB0Qzo at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE PAYMENTS: Davis Suit Removed to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Naja Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE PAYMENTS SERVICES LLC,, Case No. 2025CH02736 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01211-ABA. The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks various types of actual damages, including purported amounts Plaintiff paid for "convenience fees" that RPPS allegedly assessed in connection with processing payments for rent and application fees. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff was billed at least $65.10 in connection with three specifically described "example" rental payment transactions that occurred in January and February 2025. The Plaintiff's Complaint also seeks costs and attorneys' fees under Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff's Complaint also seeks "preliminary and final" injunctive relief by asking the Court to deem RPPS's alleged business activities in Maryland to be unlawful and to "prevent RPPS from collecting" the allegedly improper convenience fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Carney GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD. 11350 McCormick Road, Suite 1000 Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Phone: (410) 825-2300 Fax: (410) 825-0066 Email: bcarney@GWCfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary C. Zinsner, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE, LLP 401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 274-1932 Email: mary.zinsner@troutman.com REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Cunningham Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dustin Cunningham and Xane Olson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2053LA61 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03959. The Plaintiffs allege that in April 2023 and May 2023 they were required to submit to a physical examination and provide their genetic information, including information regarding family members' "history of diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and other medical conditions," as a condition of applying for employment in violation of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 391-5059 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Julie Holt, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste 610 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: Jholt@hedinllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Justin O. Kay, Esq. Charles E. Westerhaus, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 569-1000 Fax: (312) 569-3000 Email: justin.kay@faegredrinker.com charles.westerhaus@faegredrinker.com - and - Rachel A. Beck, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 842-8800 Fax: (202) 842-8465 Email: rachel.beck@faegredrinker.com RICKY DIXON: Keohane Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REIYN KEOHANE; SASHA MENDOZA; SHEILA DIAMOND; KARTER JACKSON; and NELSON BOOTHE, v. RICKY D. DIXON, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00434-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class of: "all current and future incarcerated persons in custody of the FDC who (i) have gender dysphoria and (ii) absent HSB 15.05.23, would be provided hormone therapy and/or clothing and grooming accommodations to treat their gender dysphoria if deemed medically necessary for them, and allow them and class counsel to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent FDC from i) denying clothing and grooming accommodations for inmates with gender dysphoria, regardless of their medical need for such care, and ii) denying or delaying hormone therapy for inmates with gender dysphoria based on requirements that are unrelated to their medical needs", and --appointing their counsel to serve as class counsel. The case presents a legal and factual dispute well-suited for resolution on a class basis, as it meets all the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). The Plaintiffs are individuals with gender dysphoria held in Florida prisons whose medically necessary health care is being denied, withdrawn and/or gravely threatened by the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDC") as a result of a recent policy change. Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition characterized by clinically significant distress that can result from the incongruity between an individual's gender identity and the sex they were designated at birth. The Plaintiffs brought an Eighth Amendment claim arguing that, in implementing the new policy, which denies and threatens to deny medically necessary health care, FDC is deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of plaintiffs and those similarly situated to them. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=soVWId at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samantha J. Past, Esq. Daniel B. Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 363-2714 E-mail: dtilley@aclufl.org spast@aclufl.org - and - Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq. Leslie Cooper, Esq. Michelle Fraling, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2584 E-mail: lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org lcooper@aclu.org michelle.fraling@aclu.org - and - Anthony Anscombe, Esq. Darlene Alt, Esq. Emily Shook, Esq. Laurel Taylor, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 577-1300 E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com dalt@steptoe.com eshook@steptoe.com lataylor@steptoe.com RSCR CALIFORNIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Delgado Due Oct. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESIRAY DELGADO, et al., v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07988-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maria Audero entered a schedule of class certification dates as follows: Deadline to file Joint E-Discovery Plan: May 9, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Oct. 9, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Nov. 13, 2025 Deadline to File a Motion for Class Oct. 9, 2025 Certification: Deadline to File an Opposition to the Motion Dec. 5, 2025 for Class Certification: Deadline to File a Reply: Jan. 14, 2026 Hearing Date on Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 24, 2026 The Defendant provides employment services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rpcJJx at no extra charge.[CC] SALESFORCE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG, LANAE JOHNSON, and PEARL MAGPAYO, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SALESFORCE, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order extending case schedule as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification July 18, 2025 and Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures for all experts due: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Nov. 3, 2025 for Class Certification, Defendants' Expert Disclosures, and Defendants' Daubert Motions: Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Dec. 22, 2025 Class Certification, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Daubert Motions, and Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions: Defendant's Reply in Support of its Daubert Jan. 29, 2026 Motions and Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Daubert Feb. 19, 2026 Motions: Salesforce provides applications focused on sales, customer service, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psQ4DQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Emani N. Oakley, Esq. Katie Viggiani, Esq. Elisabeth Hutchinson, Esq. Erik Manukyan, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com EOakley@mofo.com KViggiani@mofo.com EHutchinson@mofo.com EManukyan@mofo.com SERVICE FINANCE: Faces Hutchins Suit Over Deceptive Consumer Loans ------------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN D. HUTCHINS AND SARAH P. HUTCHINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80443 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2025) is a class action for violations of the Truth in Lending Act; deceptive and unfair trade practices laws; fraudulent inducement; and civil conspiracy in connection with misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions in the solicitation of consumer loans for the purchase of residential solar energy systems. According to the complaint, Service Finance orchestrated a scheme with solar installers to induce homeowners into entering finance agreements for the purchase of solar energy systems with false and fraudulent representations and omissions that the finance agreements were subject to low financing costs, such as a "low" annual percentage rate. However, the financing costs associated with these deals are deceptive, false, and misleading. Service Finance purposefully designed the deals so that a substantial finance charge was baked into the cash price of the goods and services. This finance charge was created and mandated by Service Finance --not the solar installers -- and amounted to nearly 30% of the true cash value of the goods and services. Each finance agreement issued by Service Finance for the purchase of a solar energy system included a stated "cash price" on the face of the financing agreement that was false because it included the nearly 30% financing fee set by Service Finance. These finance agreements are created by Service Finance and provided to the solar installers to use in sales for which Service Finance will be providing credit. Service Finance sets the rate of the fees and requires the solar installers to use their form contract in order for Service Finance to finance the sale, asserts the suit. Service Finance goes to great lengths to keep the fee and the true cash price of the energy systems a secret by instructing the solar installers not to disclose the financing fee and not to disclose the true cash price of the systems. Had the financing fee and true cash price been properly disclosed, the APRs provided in the finance agreements would have been closer to, if not exceeding, 30%, the suit added. The Plaintiffs are consumers who entered loans with Service Finance under the false pretense that the loans were offered at cash value with a low APR. The Defendant Service Finance is a finance company that regularly extends or offers to extend consumer credit to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy L. Judkins, Esq. NEWSOME LAW, P.A. 201 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 648-5977 Facsimile: (407) 648-5282 E-mail: ajudkins@newsomelaw.com lusardi@newsomelaw.com - and - Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Harper Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HARPER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-21912-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Federico Moreno entered an order granting certification of the Settlement Class solely for purposes of the Settlement pursuant toFed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(3). The Settlement Class is defined to consist of: "All persons or entities (i) who, from May 24,2022 to the date of preliminary approval, purchased Astrals NFTS and/or(ii)who, before the date of preliminary approval, purchased GLXY Tokens." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: a. The Settling Defendants and their officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees; b. Any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and c. Any person or entity who wouldo otherwise be a Settlement Class Member but who validly requested exclusion pursuant to the "Opt-Out" provision of the Settlement Agreement. Lead class counsel is awarded Class counsel fees and costs in the amount of $2,910,000. The Court finds that the requested Plaintiffs General Release Payment of $15,000 to each of the Plaintiffs is reasonable in the circumstances. Shaquille O'Neal is an American former professional basketball player who is a sports analyst on the television program Inside the NBA. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FZowRA at no extra charge.[CC] SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Fact Discovery in Herrick Suit Due June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03191-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting the parties' request to extend discovery deadlines by 45 days, and discovery shall proceed as follows: 1. Fact Discovery Deadline: Friday, June 13, 2025 a. Letter Certifying Close of Fact Discovery: June 20, 2025 2. Expert Discovery Deadline: Monday, Aug. 4, 2025 a. The Plaintiff's expert disclosure deadline: May 21, 2025 b. The Defendant's expert disclosure deadline: July 25, 2025 c. Letter Certifying Close of Discovery: Aug. 11, 2025 Shutterstock is an American provider of stock photography, stock footage, stock music, and editing tools. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c5po5H at no extra charge.[CC] SIEMENS MOBILITY: Scovill Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shelby Scovill and Kody Maynard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV004580 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01081-TLN-SCR. The Complaint asserts a single claim of relief for negligence. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek loss of wages and/or earning capacity.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq. Olga Savage, Esq. Rae Y. Chung, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-3659 Phone: +1 415 543 8700 Facsimile: +1 415 391 8269 Email: mgehrke@reedsmith.com osavage@reedsmith.com raechung@reedsmith.com SIENNA MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bachhuber Due Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. SIENNA MARKETING & CONSULTING, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00010-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order: 1. Initial disclosures per Rule 26(a)(1): April 23, 2025 2. Motions for class certification and proponent's disclosure of class certification experts: Dec. 5, 2025 Opposition and respondent's expert disclosure: Jan. 23, 2026 Reply and Daubert motions: March 13, 2026 Responses to Daubert motions: April 10, 2026 Replies in support of Daubert motions: April 24, 2026 3. Disclosure of all other proponent experts: July 13, 2026 Disclosure of all other respondent experts: Aug. 10, 2026 4. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Sept. 7, 2026 5. First Final Pretrial Conference: March 3, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. Second Final Pretrial Conference: March 10, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. Sienna is a full service loan brokerage. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JAmG3w at no extra charge.[CC] SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Garcia's Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO GARCIA VALDEZ and MARBELLA GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The court finds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good-cause for such a lengthy extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings. The Plaintiffs have been on notice of Gordon and Mitchell's potential status as "employers" under the FLSA since Oct. 31, 2022. Since then, the parties and the court have spent more than two years engaging in discovery, motions practice, the process of conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, the subsequent notice-and-opt-in period, settlement discussions and mediation, and serial extensions to the scheduling order. Only recently did plaintiffs finally pursue the discovery that they contend justifies the late addition of these individuals as defendants. This does not demonstrate diligence in seeking to add these defendants. And adding them at this belated procedural juncture—on the eve of the close of discovery, the pretrial conference, and motions practice deadlines—would derail what has already turned into a protracted case schedule. The Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this putative class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") alleging that their employer willfully failed to pay them overtime compensation. Signature Landscapes is a family-owned landscaping and snow removal service provider. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EahM71 at no extra charge.[CC] SMOKY ROSE: Savage Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Russ Savage, individually and for others similarly situated v. SMOKY ROSE, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00914-E (N.D. Tex., April 11, 2025), to recover misappropriated tips and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to recover the unpaid overtime and other damages owed to him and the other Overtime Workers. The Defendant misappropriated the Plaintiff and other Tipped Workers' tips by forcing to participate in a tip pool with Management and non-tipped employees. The Defendant split the Plaintiff and the Tipped Workers' tips with at least one manager and at least two non-tipped cooks in violation of the FLSA the Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers (as defined below) regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. But The Defendant does not pay its Overtime Workers for all overtime hours they work. Instead, The Defendant only paid the Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week that were approved by The Defendant. In fact, The Defendant frequently capped the the Plaintiff and the Overtime Workers' hours at 40 hours per workweek, despite them regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender. Smoky Rose owns and operates a Tex-Mex restaurant in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Gasper, Esq. GASPER LAW PLLC 633 West Davis Street Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (469) 663-7336 Fax: (833) 957-2957 Email: travis@travisgasper.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal SOUTHEAST SERIES: Faces Lawson Class Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- REX LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00240-LMC (W.D. Mo., April 4, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Lockton provides employee-benefit management services, including insurance, risk management, and employee benefits. As part of its business, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. Accordingly, by taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, alleges the suit. On Nov. 20, 2024, Lockton identified suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Lockton determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and accessed Lockton's data files. The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals accessed and stole files containing the sensitive personal information of thousands of individuals. The personally identifiable information accessed by cybercriminals included, but is not limited to, names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial information, addresses, medical insurance information, and contact information. The Defendant's misconduct -- failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach -- caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States. Due to the Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, says the suit. The Defendant offers insurance services.[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 - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Parrott Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY PARROTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, and HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00236-BP (W.D. Mo., April 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and at least 1,706 Class Members' personally identifiable information including names, date of birth, and protected health information, including medical information and medical insurance. On Nov. 20, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed a network system and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former Benefit Recipients of Defendant Lockton's clients. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is a company that provides insurance, risk management, and employee-benefit management services to its clients. House of Reaford Farms is a company that raises and supplies chicken products across the country and was a client of Defendant Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWTIZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com SPECIALTY WELDING: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dustin John Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTY WELDING AND TURNAROUNDS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C25-00630 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, Contra Costa County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03293. The Complaint contains eight 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: Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com - and - Bo Kyung Kim, Esq. Cirrus B. Jahangiri, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: bkim@littler.com cjahangiri@littler.com STATE FARM: All Fact Discovery in Manrique Suit Due Oct. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MANRIQUE suing individually on his own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:21-cv-00224-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery is to be completed no later than Oct. 10, 2025 -- Fact depositions to be completed by Oct. 10, 2025. -- Expert and class certification deadlines: a. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and Motion for Class Certification shall be made no later than Nov. 7, 2025. Deposition(s) of Plaintiff's expert(s) shall be completed by Nov 21, 2025. b. The Defendant's expert disclosures and opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be made no later than Dec. 9, 2025. Deposition(s) of Defendant's expert(s) shall be completed by Jan. 6, 2026. c. The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification shall be due by Jan. 13, 2026. -- The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for Oct. 28, 2025. State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sg2GIA at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hardy Due Jan. 15, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HARDY, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-00072-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered a Rule 16(B) And Rule 23(D)(2) Scheduling Order Regarding Class Certification Motion: Class certification discovery cut-off: Dec. 3, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Jan. 15, 2026 class certification: (noted 21 days after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda). Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: April 15, 2026 Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: June 26, 2026 Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the Court after briefing complete State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EX61I1 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Faces Dorhout Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHANNA DORHOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01129-JEH (C.D. Ill., April 3, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff was a resident of Lancaster County, Nebraska. State Farm Insurance is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-229 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com STATE FARM: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Robin Suit Due August 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH ROBIN, individually and CIVIL ACTION on behalf of others similarly situated, V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00391-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard Bourgeois Jr. entered an order granting the joint motion to stay or extend deadline pending mediation: 1. Filing a motion for class certification: Aug. 4, 2025. a. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification: Aug. 25, 2025. b. The Plaintiff's reply memorandum: Sept. 8, 2025. 2. Proposed hearing date for class certification: Will be set by the district judge. Within 7 days of any ruling on the issue of class certification, the parties are to contact the undersigned so that an additional proposed discovery schedule may be discussed and entered. 3. Filing all discovery motions and completing all discovery except experts: Aug. 1, 2025. Discovery from experts must be completed by July 11, 2025. State Farm operates in the financial services industry, specializing in non-life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ElHwCI at no extra charge.[CC] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WESTON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): California Class: "All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned Class Vehicles in California who have not sold the vehicle as of April 4, 2025." Colorado Class: "All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned Class Vehicles in Colorado who have not sold the vehicle as of April 4, 2025." Massachusetts Class: "All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned Class Vehicles in Massachusetts who have not sold the vehicle as of April 4, 2025." Ohio Class: "All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned Class Vehicles in Ohio who have not sold the vehicle as of April 4, 2025." Class Vehicles: 2012-2020 Subaru Forester vehicles, 2015-2020 Subaru Legacy vehicles, and 2015-2020 Subaru Outback vehicles. In support thereof, Plaintiffs files a Memorandum of Law and supporting Declarations of Russell D. Paul, Abigail J. Gertner, and all exhibits thereto. For the Court's consideration, Plaintiffs attach an accompanying proposed Order. Subaru of America is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AEQFj6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. Majdi Y. Hijazin, Esq. Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-5702 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net - and - Greg F. Coleman, Esq. Ryan McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (856) 522-0049 E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com rmcmillian@milberg.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com SUN ENERGY: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by April 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE v. SUN ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02155 (W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order as follows: On or before April 14, 2025, Mr. Lawrence shall (1) select and identify for Sun Energy three opt-in Plaintiffs for whom Sun Energy will produce exemplar documents as set forth in this Order, and (2) provide to Sun Energy a proposal for substantially narrowing the scope of RFPs 82, 87, and 88, including proposed search terms. On or before April 21, 2025, Sun Energy shall produce to Mr. Lawrence the following exemplar documents responsive to RFPs 72, 74, 75, and 76 for each of the three opt-in Plaintiffs selected by Mr. Lawrence. Sun Energy shall provide that exemplar document for a substitute opt-in Plaintiff of Sun Energy's choosing. Also on or before April 21, 2025, Sun Energy shall respond to Mr. Lawrence's proposal regarding a narrowed scope of RFPs 82, 87 and 88. Furthermore, on or before Apil 21, 2025 Sun Energy shall produce any spreadsheets containing notations describing whether to issue Performance Excellence Program bonuses that are responsive to RFP 80. On or before April 28, 2025, the parties shall meet and confer regarding Mr. Lawrence's RFPs and file a joint status report describing whether Mr. Lawrence, having had the benefit of reviewing exemplar documents, still seeks the production of additional documents responsive to RFPs 72, 74, 75, 76, and/or 81 for all opt-in Plaintiffs, and if so, what the parties' positions are on such requests. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Sun Energy provides oilfield services.[CC] TISHOMINGO COMMUNITY: Dunman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Dunman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TISHOMINGO COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC, Case: No. 1:25-cv-00053-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., April 11, 2025), is brought challenging the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") dur to unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and all other CNAs, LPNs, and RNs (collectively "Nursing Personnel") frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. Defendant would pay a higher rate for a shift that spanned from 11 pm to 7 am than it would pay for a shift that spanned from 7 am to 3 pm. Despite paying these additional forms of compensation, Defendant failed to include these amounts in the calculation of Plaintiff and the other Nursing Personnel's weekly regular rate of pay. By failing to include these amounts in the calculation of each employee's weekly regular rate of pay, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all of its Nursing Personnel one- and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week. By neglecting to do so, Defendant systematically deprived Plaintiff and the other Nursing Personnel of the overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a registered nurse until May of 2023. The Defendant operates a skilled nursing facility in Tishomingo County, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Phone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com TOMORROW FARMS: Bored Cowb Not Real Milk, Awasum Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- NANGA AWASUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOMORROW FARMS, PBC, and BORED COW LLC f/k/a TOMORROW FARMS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01878 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025) arise from Tomorrow Farms representation to consumers through its packaging that Bored Cow is "ANIMAL-FREE DAIRY MILK" that is "MADE WITH MILK PROTEIN FROM FERMENTATION INSTEAD OF COWS." Tomorrow Farms adds that, as a result, Bored Cow "looks, feels, tastes, and acts just like the real thing, because it is. But Bored Cow is not the real thing, i.e., real milk, or even a plant-based equivalent to milk. That is because, unbeknownst to consumers, Bored Cow contains only about 13.4% whey protein, and the remaining approximately 86.6% of Bored Cow is composed of fungal proteins, the suit says. The suit contends that Bored Cow also contains approximately 93 fungal compounds that are waste byproducts of the fermentation process -- none of which are found in cow's milk or milk protein. These byproducts are residual material from the dead fungal microorganism used during fermentation, specifically Trichoderma reesei. As a result of its deceptive conduct, Tomorrow Farms violates state consumer protection statutes and has breached warranties to consumers, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Awasum is a purchaser of Bored Cow who, like other consumers, was unaware of the truth about the product. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, she asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty. Tomorrow Farms has formulated, manufactured, advertised, and sold Bored Cow, a line of milk alternatives, including but not limited to Bored Cow Original, Bored Cow Strawberry, Bored Cow Vanilla, Bored Cow Chocolate, and Bored Cow Pumpkin Spice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 Eighth Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com UNITED STATES: EME Suit Challenges Constitutionality of MSSA ------------------------------------------------------------ EQUAL MEANS EQUAL; HEROICA FOUNDATION; JACQUELINE FENORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; CRAIG BROWN, in his official capacity as acting director of the SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM; and SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, Case No. 1:25-cv-10806-WGY (D. Mass., April 3, 2025) challenges to the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), which requires "every male citizen" to register for the draft. According to the complaint, two of EME's female members attempted to submit applications to register for Selective Service. Their applications were rejected because they are female. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, the suit says. Plaintiff Equal Means Equal is an organization that represents women, and advocates for women's equality. It is a project of Plaintiff Heroica Foundation, a national 501(c)(3) organization. EME's sole mission is to establish women's equality under the United States Constitution. EME has been a national leader in the fight for women’s equality for many years. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (ERA), and the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. Defendant Selective Service System is an independent agency within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The Selective Service System collects and maintains information on individuals who register for the draft. Defendant Craig T. Brown is Acting Director of the Selective Service of System. Defendant Donald J. Trump is President of the United States, Commander of Chief of the United States Military, and head of the executive branch. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wendy Murphy, Esq. Women's and Children's Advocacy Project New England Law | Boston 154 Stuart Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 422-7410 E-mail: Wmurphy@nesl.edu UNITED STATES: Swaso Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYRON SHAKEEL SWASO v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00079-CDL-AGH (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action. The Defendant works to improve the security of the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYkSfi at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Meyer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MEYER, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; BILLINGS CLINIC; and REGIONAL CARE HOSPITAL PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a RCCH HEALTHCARE, Case No. 9:21-cv-00148-DLC (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Dana Christensen entered an order granting the motion to dismiss. Because Meyer has twice amended his complaint, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile. Meyer filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") on June 6, 2022, following the Defendants United and Billings Clinic's first motion to dismiss. On June 21, 2022, United and Billings Clinic again moved to dismiss. Meyer brings this case to challenge both "pattern and practice of 'Surprise Billing,' a commonly referred to phenomenon where a patient receives 'out-of-network' bills for medical services that were provided at an 'in-network' medical facility" and "the practice of making an insured pay more than their 'annual' policy deductible by resetting the deductible on January 1, regardless of when the person became insured." UnitedHealthcare offers vision, critical illness, short term health, dental, medicaid, and term life insurance, as well as business plans and group retiree benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6ePN6 at no extra charge.[CC] VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Green Due Sept. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKKI GREEN, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. VANTAGE SUPPORTED LIVING, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04061-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian Wimes entered an order that the parties' joint motion for extension of Scheduling Order deadlines is granted in part and denied in part consistent with the following deadlines: -- Discovery Closure Deadline: Aug. 13, 2025 -- Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 13, 2025 Thie case is set for telephone conference on Jan. 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to schedule a trial date and related deadlines. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling Order for Class Certification in this matter. On April 4, 2025, the parties jointly filed the instant motion requesting to extend (1) the deadline for close of class discovery, (2) the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, (3) the date of the telephone conference set to schedule trial related deadlines, and (4) the deadline for the second mediation. Vantage Supported Living is a state licensed provider of Individualized Supported Living for adults with developmental disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uKJ1Y9 at no extra charge.[CC] VIATRIS INC: Faces Quinn Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY A. QUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIATRIS INC., SCOTT ANDREW SMITH, and THEODORA MISTRAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-00466 (W.D. Pa., April 4, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Viatris securities between August 8, 2024, to February 26, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning the failed inspection of Viatris' Indore, India facility. The Defendants' statements, albeit made months after the initial inspection and Defendants' initiation of remediation efforts included, among other things, the disclosure of the FDA's issuance of a warning letter and import alert which would prevent Viatris from shipping eleven products from the Indore facility, though four of such were exempt from the limitations (the "Warning Letter"). The Defendants routinely referred to the impact of the Warning Letter as a mere "minor headwind" for the Company. On Feb. 27, 2025 Viatris announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024 and provided disappointing fiscal 2025 guidance. The Company attributed below-expectation guidance on "the expected financial impact from Indore facility warning letter and import alert." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Viatris' revelation. The price of Viatris' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $11.24 per share on February 26, 2025, Viatris’ stock price fell to $9.53 per share on Feb. 27, 2025, a decline of about 15.21% in the span of just a single day. The Plaintiff purchased Viatris common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of Defendants' fraud, asserts the suit. Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and territories via its 26 manufacturing and packaging sites worldwide. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Coppola, Esq. PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC 513 Court Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8844 Facsimile: (412) 281-4740 E-mail: vcoppola@pribanic.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 16 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Unauthorized Products Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01223-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a Case Management and Scheduling Order as follows: Event Proposed Date Trial Date: Jan. 25, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference: Dec. 2, 2026 Joint Pretrial Statement: Nov. 4, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 15, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: April 24, 2026 ADR (private mediation): Feb. 5, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: Hearing: Dec. 16, 2025 Opening Brief: Oct. 2, 2025 Wells Fargo agrees to a continuance of the class certification opening brief deadline and hearing date for one month, but does not agree to Plaintiffs’ proposal or to continue any of the other deadlines. Obviously, this is inadequate, as it would require Plaintiffs to brief class certification and the Court to decide class certification with almost no discovery from Wells Fargo, and would provide inadequate time to complete fact and expert discovery, among other tasks, as a result of Wells Fargo’s discovery delays and intransigence. The Plaintiffs served Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Wells Fargo”) with their Interrogatories and Document Requests on July 15, 2024. Wells Fargo objected to all of the discovery requests, and did not provide any substantive responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Instead, on July 24, 2024, Wells Fargo filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. The parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement on Jan. 23, 2025. Throughout this discovery process, Wells Fargo maintained the information Plaintiffs sought was available from third party service providers not named in this suit. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FJxfVa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com - and - Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Zachary W. Gussin, Esq. Katherine J. Klein, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com zgussin@kellerrohrback.com kklein@kellerrohrback.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and - Theodore O. Bartholow, III, Esq. KELLETT & BARTHOLOW PLLC 11300 N. Central Expy., Suite 301 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 696-9000 Facsimile: (214) 696-9001 E-mail: thad@kblawtx.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 10 Glenlake Parkway South Tower Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 205/8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. STERLINGTON, PLLC One World Trade Center, 85th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com - and - Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Alexander Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com - and - Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton Corker entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants' motion is granted to the extent they seek leave to address the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants, as real-estate licensees, had a duty of disclosure under Tennessee law and to address whether class certification is proper under Rule 23(c)(4). The Defendants' motion is also granted to the extent they request leave to file their expert report in opposition to class certification. Their motion is denied in all other respects. Their sur-reply shall be no more than fifteen pages in length, and they shall file it within fourteen days of this Order’s date. Because Plaintiffs propose class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) for the first time in their reply, the Court will allow Defendants to file a sur-reply and express their view as to whether class certification is proper under this rule. A showing that thousands of putative class members’ claims would be subject to arbitration is therefore of no consequence here in the class-certification stage, and the Court will not permit Defendants to brief the Court on the arbitrability of these claims at this time. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used "high-pressure sales tactics" to snooker them into purchasing their timeshares. Specifically, they claim that Defendants invite vacationers like themselves to tour the resort, but the tours turn into multi-hour sales pitches "designed to ensure that they do not leave without purchasing a timeshare property." The Plaintiff bring claims against the Defendants for violations of the Tennessee Time-Share Act of 1981, Tennessee Code Annotated section 66-32-101 et seq. (Counts One and Two), unjust enrichment (Count Three), fraudulent misrepresentation by omission (Count Four), fraud in the inducement (Count Five), negligent misrepresentation by omission (Count Six), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Seven), breach of contract (Count Eight), and civil conspiracy (Count Nine). Westgate Resorts operates as a resort development company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3paJm0 at no extra charge.[CC] WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a SAATVA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00460-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (A) Certify the class for settlement purposes, appoint the Plaintiff as class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; (B) Preliminarily approve the settlement as set forth in the proposed agreement; and (C) Approve the notice and notice plan, including, among other dates, by setting: (1) A date 21 days after the Court grants preliminary approval as the deadline to publish notice of the settlement ("Notice Deadline"); (2) A date 66 days after the Court grants preliminary approval as the deadline for Plaintiff to move for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; (3) A date 81 days after the Court grants preliminary approval as the deadline for the submission of any objections to the settlement; and (4) A date one hundred eleven (111) days after the Court grants preliminary approval for a final approval hearing, or as soon thereafter as the Court may set the hearing. Given the substantial relief obtained and the inherent risks of continued litigation, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Agreement is on par with, or exceeds, the relief achieved in analogous cases brought by the National Federation of the Blind and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and in the cases cited in the preceding paragraph. It was reached after many months of good faith negotiations at arm’s length. In June 2024, the Plaintiff attempted to access the Defendant's online store, located at https://www.saatva.com/ (“Website”). The Plaintiff could not access the Website because it was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which the Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind. As a result of the parties' shared desire to achieve the best possible solution, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on April 3, 2025, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate policies and practices to cause the Website to be accessible to blind persons, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Whitestone Home offers a variety of home furniture and decor items. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0rM7yu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com WHITESTONE HOME: Faces Douglass Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a SAATVA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00460 (W.D. Pa., April 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's ongoing failure to effectively communicate with Plaintiff because the Website is not sufficiently compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, thereby denying him full and equal access to the goods and services available at the Defendant's physical facilities pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant violated the ADA by, among other things, denying Douglass and similarly situated blind individuals the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. From its physical facilities, the Defendant makes various goods, like mattresses, and services, like customer service, return processing, and technical support, available to consumers in Pennsylvania and across the country. Consumers may remotely access the goods and services at Defendant's physical facilities by phone and email, or through the internet at Defendant's website, located at https://www.saatva.com/. The Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates physical facilities, including corporate offices, manufacturing facilities, and shipping and distribution centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com WILSON SPORTING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Case No. 0:25-cv-01244 (D. Minn., April 3, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website (www.wilson.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 and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant has physical locations within and around the State of Minnesota. The Defendant offers sporting goods and clothing for sale including, but not limited to, athletic supplies and equipment, athletic apparel, shoes, accessories and more. In order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WM WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Hernandez Extended to June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WM WHOLESALE, LLC d/b/a CAKE BRAND, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 8:24-cv-02553-RGK-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting stipulation to extend time to respond to complaint and to file class certification motion. 1. The Defendant's responsive pleading to the complaint will be due on April 18, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification shall be on June 30, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cms24F at no extra charge.[CC] XTO ENERGY: Hearing to Exclude McArthur's Legal Opinions Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, TINA KRILEY, THOMAS A. MICHEL, CAROL L. MICHEL, GERALDINE C. WIEFLING, CHARLES E. WADDINGHAM II, CAROL G. WADDINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Brown entered an order denying the parties request for a hearing on the Motion to Exclude John Burritt McArthur's Legal Opinions Regarding Class Certification. The Court can make the legal determination of whether John Burritt McArthur's expert report contains legal opinions without the need for an evidentiary hearing. XTO's request for a hearing on the class certification motion is granted. A class certification hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 17, 2025 beginning at 9:00AM at the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 1 The Court will impose time limits and each side will have 3.5 hours to present, cross and offer summations. To the extent the parties intend to present live testimony, counsel shall exchange a witness list and include a proffer of each witness by June 3, 2025. The witness list and proffer shall be filed on the docket by that same date. To the extent either party intends to present testimony of a witness via live video, they shall file a motion for leave to do so by June 3, 2025, and provide the reason of the witness’s unavailability to appear in Court. The parties seeking leave shall attempt to procure opposing counsel's consent before filing the motion and shall so indicate in their motion. To the extent the parties intend to use exhibits not of record, said exhibits shall be identified and exchanged by June 3, 2025. The exhibit list and corresponding exhibits must also be filed on the docket by that date. The parties need not identify those documents which are already of record and shall refer to said exhibits with the electronic filing number of record at the hearing. On or before June 3, 2025, the parties shall email a list of all non-attorney individuals who seek to keep on their person in the Courthouse their personal or work cell phones, laptops, tablets or other portable devices during the hearing to Courtroom Deputy Katie Grimm at Catherine_grimm@pawd.uscourts.gov XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil. A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LmUqe8 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***