/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250425.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 25, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 83
Headlines
ACRO INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by May 14
APPLE INC: Faces Morehouse Suit Over Consumers' Book Purchases
APPLE INC: Martin and Butler Sue Over False Ads on Siri AI
ASK IT: Khanchandani Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Moland Class Suit Over Special Deposits
BAYER CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Newman Suit to 2nd Circuit
BELGIOIOSO CHEESE: Hermans Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
BELL PARTNERS: Filing for Summary Judgment Bid Due June 30
BILL NELSON: Barth Suit Seeks Class Certification
BISCAYNE APPLE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
BOYNE USA: Hornbeck Suit Seeks Class Certification
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Discloses Personal Info to Google, Lo Says
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reiman Says
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Allows Google to Eavesdrop on Customer Calls
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Info to Google, Diaz Says
CARNIVAL PLC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
CENTRAL PARK: Mino Seeks Delivery Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Files Notice of Pending Motions in Chomicz Suit
CORMEDIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.J.
DARLING SHOE: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Mercedes Claims
DNVB INC: Faces Demarco Class Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
DRINK LMNT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sued Over Undisclosed Skin Irritation Risks
FAVORITE DAUGHTER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Says
FIVERR INC: Faces Miller Class Suit Over Junk Service Fees
FLUENCE ENERGY: Faces Kramer Suit Over Common Stock Value Drop
GBL CAPITAL: Faces Giancaspro Suit Over Pollen Music Festival
GLOBAL MAIL INC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Discloses Viewing Info to Meta, Goodman Alleges
HITCHCOCK SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
HMS HOST USA: Applewhite Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HOME DEPOT: Maciel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HZ OPS HOLDINGS: Garcia Suit Removed to D. Colorado
INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Fails to Provide 60-Day Notice Under WARN Act
KIPLING RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
KMAM MANAGEMENT: Zamora Files Suit in N.D. New York
LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Harris Claims
LELAND STANFORD: Chism Suit Removed to N.D. California
LEVY PREMIUM: Fails to Provide 60-Day Notice Under WARN Act
LUXURY BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Says
M.F. MAHER INC: Ponce Suit Removed to E.D. California
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Orlando Police Over Stock Price Drop
MARS PETCARE US: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MINT MOBILE: May CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
NATIONAL CABLE: Discloses Personal Viewing Info to FB, Horan Says
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Lozano Says
OFFBEAT VENTURES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
OLD NAVY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges
OLINSKY & ASSOCIATES: Leon-Roman Files Suit in N.D. New York
ORRSTOWN BANK: Pryde Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
OTS SOLUTIONS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Uwaoma Suit
PANGAEA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says
PAULA & CHLO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
PEPSICO INC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under IMWL
PIKOLINOS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
PLATINUM NINE: Baum Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
REFUAH HEALTH: Esposito Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
REFUAH HEALTH: Krandle Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
REGENCY INTEGRATED: Grandin Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SEASIDE BREEZE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Awaits Order Dismissing "Levy"
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Johnson Claims
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Whiting Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
SOUTHWEST HEALTHCARE: McCormick Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Breaches
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Issues Order Dismissing Securities Suit
SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Urdan Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Games
TEMPEL STEEL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Buckner Alleges
TRADE DESK: Illegally Tracks and Collects Users' Data, Turner Says
U.S. BANCORP: Faces Futo Class Suit Over Bank Deposit Program
ULTIMATE HEATING: Henriques Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
UNITED STATES: Wiley Sues Over Agency Action Impact on Coal Miners
UPSIDE NORTH AMERICA: Blind Can't Access Website, Pittman Alleges
VENTURE GLOBAL: Faces Firstfire Securities Suit Over Sales Drop
VOLUME SERVICES: Pacheco Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
WALMART INC: Scott Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
WATERFIELD DESIGNS: Evans Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
WNC LAUNDRY: Marin Seeks to Recover Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Liable for 15% of $18MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns Verdict for American Honda in Trial
*********
ACRO INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Acro International Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03570 (E.D.
Wisc., April 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, desiclik.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services PPC International provides to
their non-disabled customers through https://www.desiclik.com.
Desiclik.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Acro
International. Yet, Desiclik.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers
make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even
complete a transaction on the website, asserts the suit.
Thus, Acro 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, the suit
adds.
The Plaintiff cannot use a computer without the assistance of
screen reader software. The Plaintiff has been denied the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Desiclik.com as
a result of accessibility barriers on Desiclik.com.
The Defendant controls and operates Desiclik.com in the State of
Wisconsin and throughout the United States.[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
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by May 14
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARINATWE v. AMERICAN
HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678 (S.D. Fla, Filed
Sept. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to
extend deadline for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file his motion on or before May 14, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant provides clinical laboratory services in the United
States.[CC]
APPLE INC: Faces Morehouse Suit Over Consumers' Book Purchases
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MOREHOUSE and KERI SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No.
5:25-cv-02988 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2025) contends that the Defendant
advertised, and continues to advertise, Digital Goods for
"purchase" when, in fact, the content is not available to buy --
only to be licensed.
The Defendant misrepresents the true nature of its consumers' book
purchases as a sale for the primary purpose of being able to charge
higher prices than if it were to convey to consumers that they are
only purchasing a revokable license to view or listen to the book,
the suit says.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
Classes, seek to hold Apple accountable for its unfair, deceptive,
and unlawful practices of representing to consumers that they are
purchasing e-books and audiobooks, when at best consumers are only
getting a license allowing them access. Because Apple is only
selling a revokable license that allows a consumer to access the
book, some users have unexpectedly found that the books they
previously purchased were no accessible to them, despite having
paid for them, the suit claims.
The Plaintiffs seek to bring claims on behalf of a Nationwide Class
and a California Subclass of consumers who purchased digital goods
from Apple and are seeking to recover damages and injunctive or
declaratory relief ordering the Defendant to disgorge all revenues
unjustly received from the proposed Classes due to its intentional
and unlawful practice of misleading consumers when purchasing
digital goods.
On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff Morehouse was searching on the
Defendant's Apple Books application and found an audiobook, The
Idea of You by Robinne Lee, that she wanted to purchase. Plaintiff
Morehouse clicked on the purchase button that identified the price
as $19.99.
Apple offers digital goods, including e-books and audiobooks.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
APPLE INC: Martin and Butler Sue Over False Ads on Siri AI
----------------------------------------------------------
COREY MARTIN and TYSHAUN BUTLER, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03205-NC (N.D. Cal., April
9, 2025) arises from Apple's materially false and misleading
statements relating to Apple's artificial intelligence suite of
features, branded as "Apple Intelligence."
Defendant Apple promised AI enhancements to Siri, its
software-based virtual assistant. The Siri AI makeover was the
centerpiece of the promised Apple Intelligence platform and was
touted by the company in advertisements and other public statements
in an effort to increase sales of the iPhone 16 and spur iPhone
upgrades. However, Siri's touted "In-App" and "On-Screen" AI
functions still do not exist even though its nearly a year after
Defendant's statements were made.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for fraud and deceit, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
California False Advertising Law, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple, Inc. designs, manufactures,
and markets mobile communication and media devices, including the
iPhone line of smartphones. The company also sells a variety of
software, services, and accessories for use with iPhones. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Gia Jung, Esq.
Vasti S. Montiel, Esq.
Pierce H. Stanley, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
gjung@cpmlegal.com
vmontiel@cpmlegal.com
pstanley@cpmlegal.com
ASK IT: Khanchandani Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dimple Khanchandani, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASK IT Solutions, LLC, Sai Kiran Singh Takoor
(a/k/a Saikiran Singh Thokur), Paul Petrucelli, and Keerthi Chenna,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00793-K (N.D. Tex., Apr. 1, 2025) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid regular wages, and unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit contends that the Defendants egregiously refused to pay
the Plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars that she earned,
notwithstanding that the Defendants received payment from clients
specifically for the Plaintiff's services. Instead of paying the
Plaintiff, the Defendants illegally pocketed the money that she was
entitled to receive.
The Plaintiff further alleges that she suffered retaliation at the
hands of Defendants for engaging in protected activity, and
therefore is entitled to recover damages, including lost back and
front wages, damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.
The Defendants threatened to make a false report to USCIS that the
Plaintiff had violated immigration laws in an effort to jeopardize
her legal status in the United States, file a baseless criminal
complaint against her, in addition to other bad faith threats of
reprisal intended to intimidate the Plaintiff from exercising her
legal rights under the FLSA and other applicable laws.
Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the
Defendants for their breach of contract. Alternatively, the
Plaintiff is entitled to recovery on theories of promissory
estoppel and/or unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff accordingly seeks to assert claims on her own behalf
and on behalf of a collective action consisting of
similarly-situated employees who suffered as a result of the same
illegal policies and/or practices.
The Plaintiff's employment with Defendants commenced on June 3,
2024 and ended due to the Defendants' retaliatory and unlawful
termination of Ms. Khanchandani, on Feb. 27, 2025.
ASK IT provides staffing for corporate technical projects in
partnership with information technology consulting firms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
- and -
Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
205 East Main Street, Suite 3-2
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (914) 552-2669
E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Moland Class Suit Over Special Deposits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARNESHIA MOLAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:25-at-00260 (E.D.
Cal., Apr. 1, 2025) challenges Bank of America's unlawful retention
of earnings on funds owned by the Plaintiff and the Class which BOA
holds as "special deposits."
Under California law, only the owner of the special deposit is
entitled to such earnings, yet BOA allegedly keeps these earnings
for itself.
The Plaintiff and the Class are recipients of electronic benefit
payments from the government of California's Employment Development
Department. These Benefits include unemployment, disability, and
Paid Family Leave payments.
Prior to Feb. 15, 2024, the EDD designated BOA as its financial
agent for the provision of EDD benefits. By seizing the Earnings,
BOA converted the property of the Benefit Recipients to its own use
in violation of California law, breached its fiduciary duties to
the Plaintiff and the Class, and committed unfair and deceptive
acts affecting California consumers in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff contends.
BOA's unjust and violative conduct has proximately caused the
Plaintiff and the Class to suffer injury and damage, for which BOA
should be held responsible. In the alternative, BOA has been
unjustly enriched by its seizure of the Earnings and should be
required to disgorge those Earnings to Plaintiff and the Class, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff received benefits from EDD, which were deposited as
special deposits in her BOA EDD Card account from March of 2019
until May of 2023. The Plaintiff's monthly EDD special deposits
were $900- $1000.
Bank of America is a nationally chartered bank with its principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E, #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
BAYER CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Newman Suit to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BAYER CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit
entitled Tanysha Newman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bayer Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-07087, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this action against the Defendants for false advertising of
their One A Day chewable supplements.
On July 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Mar. 19, 2025. The Court
held that the Plaintiff has satisfied all of the necessary Rule 23
requirements.
The appellate case is captioned Tanysha Newman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bayer Corporation, et
al., Case No. 25-779, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on April 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent TANYSHA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Email: mroberts@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
- and –
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
Defendants-Petitioners BAYER CORPORATION, et al. are represented
by:
Alexis Swartz, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
- and –
Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
Shannon G. Denmark, Esq.
Jacob B. Richards, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
200 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (512) 693-8350
BELGIOIOSO CHEESE: Hermans Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN HERMANS and JESSICA MICHIELS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. BELGIOIOSO CHEESE, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-00533 (E.D. Wisc., April 14, 2025) alleges that Defendant
failed to pay employees all overtime wages earned pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.
The case challenges certain policies and practices of Defendants
that violate the FLSA for failure to pay all compensable time,
resulting in unpaid overtime. During their employment, the
Plaintiffs worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s).
However, the Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated for integral and indispensable work resulting in
unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, says the
suit.
The Defendant manufactures, packages, and distributes food
products, including cheese, at its facilities in Wisconsin and New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com
rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
BELL PARTNERS: Filing for Summary Judgment Bid Due June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Bell Partners,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10390 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 16,
2024), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an amended scheduling
order as follows:
-- The Defendants' expert designation & disclosure by June 30,
2025.
-- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment to be filed no
later than June 30, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification to be filed
within 30 days following the Court's summary judgment ruling.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Rent Lease & Ejectment.
Bell Partners operates as a real estate management company.[CC]
BILL NELSON: Barth Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BARTH, DENNIS
EDWARD CULLEY, MICHAEL EFFINGER, and GRETCHEN THOMAS, v. BILL
NELSON NASA ADMINISTRATOR, Case No. 1:24-cv-01634-RDM (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification and allowing to advance as a class complaint.
According to the complaint, many of the Plaintiffs named have
already proceeded together as a putative class through the
administrative phase. Relief on behalf of one member of the
putative class would necessarily apply to the entire class of
individuals identified here and who have yet to be identified. The
substantial similarity in experience and in harm mitigates any
interest of the individual class members' need to prosecute these
claims.
Ms. Thomas brought suit for discrimination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against
then NASA Administrator Bill Nelson on June 3, 2024, a complaint
that she styled as a Class Action Complaint. She amended her class
complaint to include Plaintiffs Christopher Barth, Dennis Culley,
and Michael Effinger on Dec. 6, 2024.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zp0Eug at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Scott Lloyd, Esq.
LLOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
106 Chester Street, Suite 1
Front Royal, VA 22630
Telephone: (540) 823-1110
E-mail: scott@lloydlg.com
BISCAYNE APPLE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. BISCAYNE APPLE LLC and
THE JUICY SEAFOOD MIAMI LLC D/B/A RED CRAB RESTAURANT, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-21572 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2025) is an action
against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant's subject commercial property and restaurant are open
to the public and are located in Florida City, Florida. The
individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property, to include
visits to the commercial property and businesses located within the
commercial property on December 22 and 23, 2024, and encountered
multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability
to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Defendants have
discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
commercial property, says the suit.
Plaintiff Pardo is an individual with disabilities as defined by
and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
Biscayne Apple LLC owns and operates a commercial property at 33009
S Dixie Highway, Florida City, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
BOYNE USA: Hornbeck Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA HORNBECK and CATHY
DEMARIA-MCKAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., BOYNE
MOUNTAIN RESORT, LLC, THE MOUNTAIN GRAND LODGE & SPA, LLC, BOYNE
HIGHLANDS RESORT, LLC, and HEATHER HIGHLANDS INN, INC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00682-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of owners of Condo units at the
Boyne Michigan Properties.
Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xMPaBq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
Jennifer Salva-Cushing, Esq.
Macy G. Marlett, Esq.
Monica Sandu, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
jsalvacushing@midwest-law.com
mmarlett@midwest-law.com
msandu@midwest-law.com
- and -
Perrin Rynders, Esq.
VARNUM LLP
333 Bridge St. NW, Suite 1700
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Telephone: (616) 336-6000
E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com
- and -
Ben Alke, Esq.
John G. Crist, Esq.
CRIST, KROGH, ALKE & NORD, PLLC
209 S. Willson Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 255-0400
E-mail: balke@cristlaw.com
jcrist@cristlaw.com
- and -
J. Devlan Geddes, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Tierney, Esq.
Henry J.K. Tesar, Esq.
GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER, P.C.
35 N. Grand
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-0618
E-mail: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com
jtierney@goetzlawfirm.com
htesar@goetzlawfirm.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Discloses Personal Info to Google, Lo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW LO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
(BSCA), Case No. 25CV118816 (April 14, 2025) addresses BSCA's
alleged outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing
its patients' confidential personally identifiable information and
protected health information to unauthorized third parties,
including Google LLC and additional unknown data brokers.
Accordingly, BSCA's unauthorized disclosures of Private Information
occurred because of its use of tracking technologies that BSCA
installed on its Web Properties, including but not limited to the
Google Analytics tool, Google Ads tool, and other related tracking
tools (Tracking Tools).
The Tracking Technologies allow unauthorized third parties to
intercept the contents of patients' communications, receive and
view patients' Private Information, mine it for purposes unrelated
to the provision of healthcare, and further monetize it to deliver
targeted advertisements to specific individuals.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Tracking
Technologies embedded on BSCA's Web Properties contain source code
that surreptitiously track, record, and disseminate the Plaintiff's
and Class Members’ online activity and communications (including
Private Information) to Google without first obtaining permission,
in violation of HIPAA, state laws, industry standards, and patient
expectations, asserts the suit.
BSCA owns and controls the Web Properties, which encouraged
Plaintiffs and other patients to use it for the following: manage
healthcare, file insurance claims, pay bills, access plan
information, and resource navigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Stephanie Aviles, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
saviles@whafh.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reiman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN REIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-03347 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2025) is a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the
Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and
protected health information that was impacted in a data breach
that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 10, 2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.
On Feb. 11, 2025, Defendant discovered that between April 2021 and
January 2024, Google Analytics was configured in a manner that
allowed certain member data to be shared with Google's advertising
product, Google ads and this incident potentially exposed PHI of
Defendant's members. Although no malicious actor was involved and
there is no evidence that Google used the information for any
purpose other than targeted advertising, Defendant has taken this
matter very seriously. Upon discovery, Defendant immediately served
the connection between Google Analytics and Google ads in January
2024. The Defendant then initiated a comprehensive review of its
website and enhanced its security protocols to ensure no further
unauthorized sharing of member data, asserts the suit.
On April 10, 2025, Defendant issued a public disclosure of the Data
Breach and began notifying affected individuals.7 9. Defendant
failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private
Information secure.
The Defendant is a major California health care insurer. The
Defendant is purported to have 4.8 million members, 7,119
employees, and over 25 billion dollars in revenue.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Allows Google to Eavesdrop on Customer Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Friedman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of
California (BSCA); Google, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
Case No. 25CV118999 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 15, 2025)
alleges that BSCA secretly enabled and allowed Google Analytics, a
third-party vendor service owned and operated by Google to
eavesdrop on the private conversations of members and patients who
communicated through BSCA's websites (the "Blue Shield Websites").
According to the complaint, Google exploited and monetized that
data by bombarding the unsuspecting members and patients with
targeted marketing ad campaigns. The Defendants did this without
the members' informed consent. As a result, the Defendants have
violated the CIPA, Cal. Penal Code sections 630, et seq. and
638.51(a), asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Orange County, California and a
member of BSCA when one or more of her private, confidential
communications on the Blue Shield Websites were monitored,
eavesdropped on and/or recorded by the Defendants without her
consent.
The Defendant is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, and
is headquartered at 601 12th Street Oakland, California. BSCA
serves 4.5 million health plan members and more than 77,000
physicians across the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 333
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 224-3881
E-mail: jbeligan@beliganlawgroup.com
lbeligan@belignanlawgroup.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Info to Google, Diaz Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DIAS on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA, Case No. 25cv118805 (Cal. Super., April 14, 2025)
addresses BSCA's alleged outrageous, illegal, and widespread
practice of disclosing its patients' confidential personally
identifiable information and protected health information to
unauthorized third parties, including Google LLC and additional
unknown data brokers.
According to the complaint, BSCA's unauthorized disclosures of
Private Information occurred because of its use of tracking
technologies that BSCA installed on its Web Properties, including
but not limited to the Google Analytics tool, Google Ads tool, and
other related tracking tools (Tracking Tools).
The Tracking Technologies allow unauthorized third parties to
intercept the contents of patients' communications, receive and
view patients' Private Information, mine it for purposes unrelated
to the provision of healthcare, and further monetize it to deliver
targeted advertisements to specific individuals.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Tracking
Technologies embedded on BSCA's Web Properties contain source code
that surreptitiously track, record, and disseminate the Plaintiff's
and Class Members’ online activity and communications (including
Private Information) to Google without first obtaining permission,
in violation of HIPAA, state laws, industry standards, and patient
expectations, asserts the suit.
BSCA owns and controls the Web Properties, which encouraged
Plaintiffs and other patients to use it for the following: manage
healthcare, file insurance claims, pay bills, access plan
information, and resource navigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
CARNIVAL PLC: Continues to Defend Consumer Protection Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending February 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consumer protection warranties breach
class suit in the Federal Court of Australia.
As of February 28, 2025, two purported class actions brought
against the Company by former guests in the Federal Court in
Australia and in Italy remain pending, as previously disclosed.
These actions include claims based on a variety of theories,
including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn,
physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with
being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard its ships.
On October 24, 2023, the court in the Australian matter held that
it was liable for negligence and for breach of consumer protection
warranties as it relates to the lead plaintiff. The court ruled
that the lead plaintiff was not entitled to any pain and suffering
or emotional distress damages on the negligence claim and awarded
medical costs.
In relation to the consumer protection warranties claim, the court
found that distress and disappointment damages amounted to no more
than the refund already provided to guests and therefore made no
further award.
Further proceedings will determine the applicability of this ruling
to the remaining class participants.
The Company continues to take actions to defend against the above
claims. It believes the ultimate outcome of these matters will not
have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.
Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Carnival Corporation owns and
operates as a cruise ships company.
CENTRAL PARK: Mino Seeks Delivery Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO MINO and FILADELFIA ALMONTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CENTRAL PARK AVENUE CORPORATION
and ANDREAS SOFOCLI a/k/a Andre, Case No. 1:25-cv-03138 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 15, 2025) seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York State Labor Law.
Accordingly, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing them the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery workers.
Mr. Mino was employed from April 2016 until November 13, 2024,while
Ms. Almonte was employed beginning until the present.
Defendant Sofocli is an owner, chairman/chief executive officer,
manager and/or operator of Central Park Ave Diner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colin Mulholland, Esq.
36-36 33rd Street, Suite 308
Astoria, NY 11106
Telephone: (347) 687-2019
- and -
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC
426 Main St, No. 201
Spotswood, NJ, 08884
Telephone: (718) 808-2224
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHALYN DARDEN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Joshalyn Darden, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Colbea Enterprises, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11540-BEM, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court for Middlesex County,
Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. On same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify
class.
On Mar. 26, 2025, Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's motion
to certify class was denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Darden v. Colbea Enterprises,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 25-1305, in the Texas Court of Appeals,
First Court of Appeals, filed on April 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOSHALYN DARDEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Matthew Patton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ PC
1 Boston Pl., Ste. 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
Defendants-Appellees COLBEA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., et al. are
represented by:
Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC
100 Westminster St., 16th Fl.
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 274-7200
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Files Notice of Pending Motions in Chomicz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSPEH CHOMICZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00586-MPS (D.
Conn., April 14, 2025), the Defendant states there are no pending
motions in the action that require action by the Court.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip H. Bieler, Esq,
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 847-2868
Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
E-mail: pbieler@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Freedus, Esq.
FELDESMAN LEIFER LLP
1129 20th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, DC
Telephone: (202) 466-8960
E-mail: mfreedus@feldesman.com
CORMEDIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CorMedix Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv 14020-JXN-CLW, two putative
class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September
13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in
In re CorMedix Securities Litigation.
On March 21, 2024, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
without prejudice and granted lead plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint.
On April 22, 2024, lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the second amended
consolidated complaint. In the third amended complaint, the lead
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019
and August 8, 2022, inclusive. The third amended complaint names as
defendants the Company and six (6) current and former officers of
CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch, Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe
Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and Joseph Todisco (the "Officer
Defendants" and collectively with CorMedix, the "CorMedix
Defendants"). The third amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule
10b-5) and that the Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a).
In general, the purported bases for these claims are allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions related to the NDA
submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete response
letters, as well as communications from the FDA related and
directed to the Company's contract manufacturing organization and
heparin supplier.
The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims. The Company
filed its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 6,
2024, and received from Plaintiffs their opposition to the
Company’s motion to dismiss on July 22, 2024. The Company filed
its response on August 21, 2024.
CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products with its principal
executive office is located in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.
DARLING SHOE: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Mercedes Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MERCEDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DARLING SHOE CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-02706 (S.D.N.Y.,
Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.craftshoesny.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Jan. 15, 2025, and again on Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff visited
the Defendant's website to purchase men's casual shoes (Florsheim
Great Lakes Walk). Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred him from having an
unimpeded shopping experience, the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Mercedes is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant offers men's, women's, and children's footwear,
including hard-to-find sizes, athletic, orthopedic, evening wear,
bridal shoes, and dye color matching services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DNVB INC: Faces Demarco Class Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM DEMARCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DNVB, Inc. d/b/a THURSDAY BOOT COMPANY, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03076-GHW (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) challenges false
advertising and deceptive pricing scheme whereby DNVB falsely
advertises "Free Shipping and Returns in the US."
According to the complaint, when a customer enters their shipping
address on the purchase screen of DNVB's website, they are
automatically charged with a charge for "Shipping Protection" of
amounts varying based on the total value of their purchase. DNVB
further falsely advises that if the customer does not pay this
"Shipping Protection" fee then "Thursday is not responsible for
damaged, lost or stolen items during shipping," asserts the suit.
DNVB intentionally does not disclose the Shipping Protection
charges to consumers in its advertising, and does not disclose the
fee until after the consumer has entered their shipping information
in the purchase process, the suit alleges.
DNVB further misrepresents to consumers that if they do not agree
to pay the fee then DNVB is not responsible for damaged, lost or
stolen items during shipping. However, as Defendant is a merchant
selling to consumers for delivery at a specified address the risk
of loss for such purchases remains with DNVB by operation of NY
law, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks restitution on behalf of himself and the Class,
including disgorgement of all revenues DNVB obtained from the Class
as a result of the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff
further seeks damages for himself and the Class members in the
amounts they paid in Shipping Protection fees, plus statutory,
treble, and punitive damages.
The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory, monetary, and statutory
relief for himself and the proposed Class to obtain redress,
bringing claims under New York General Business Law sections 349
and 350, as well as New York common law including injunctive relief
to stop DNVB's unlawful conduct as set forth herein. II.
Mr. DeMarco is a citizen and resident of Northfield, New Jersey and
purchased a pair of Premier Low Top sneakers online from DNVB's
website, www.thursdayboots.com on March 31, 2024. Like every Class
member, Plaintiff DeMarco has been victimized by the same uniform
policies described in detail herein, in that he purchased a pair of
shoes from Defendants website, and while going through the purchase
process, a $2.98 charge for Shipping Protection was added to his
order, the suit contends.
The Defendant operates the online store located at
www.thursdayboots.com as well as retail located in the Flatiron
District of New York City, the SoHo district of New York City,
Wicker Park in Chicago and the Garden State Plaza in Paramus where
it sells footwear, clothing, bags and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C
315 Madison Ave, 3rd Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 979-3642
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
DRINK LMNT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Drink Lmnt Inc., Case No. : 2:25-cv-536 (E.D. Wisc.,
April 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Drinklmnt.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Drink Lmnt provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://drinklmnt.com. 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.
Drinklmnt.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Drink Lmnt.
Yet, Drinklmnt.com contains significant access barriers that make
it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website, asserts the Court.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Drink Lmnt 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, the suit adds.
The Defendant controls and operates Drinklmnt.com in the State of
Wisconsin and throughout the United States.
Drinklmnt.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
electrolyte drink mixes, make purchases, and perform a variety of
other functions.[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
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Sued Over Undisclosed Skin Irritation Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Marie Barrales and Deadra Powell, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY,
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, and EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS,
LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00594-SVN (D. Conn., April 14, 2025), is
brought to require Edgewell to disclose the skin irritation risks
associated with All Day Deodorant on a prospective basis, and to
obtain compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits,
and all other available relief for economic harm already caused for
failing to disclose this material information.
Printed on the back of every All Day Deodorant units are claims
that it contains "Soothing ingredients," "No baking soda," and is
safe to directly apply onto skin for up to twenty-four hours.1 The
Walmart webpage dedicated to selling All Day Deodorant claims it is
"made with ultra-gentle ingredients that soothe and nourish skin
while fighting odor." And Billie's own webpage selling All Day
Deodorant claims "we create products with nourishing formulas,
yummy textures, and ingredients that make your skin feel like happy
dancin'. Our products are all dermatologist-tested."
Contrary to Edgewell and Billie's representations, All Day
Deodorant is not suitable for any skin-type, let alone the
sensitive skin of the consumers whom Edgewell and Billie's
marketing specifically targets. The Plaintiffs and numerous
consumers report that they have suffered chemical burns, skin
peeling, rashes, itchiness, and/or permanent skin discoloration
after using All Day Deodorant, (hereinafter referred to as the
"Defect"). Consumers also report that the symptoms begin within
minutes after applying All Day Deodorant and persist for weeks
afterwards.
Edgewell has been well-aware of the Defect yet continues to sell
All Day Deodorant without disclosing this material information.
Edgewell's knowledge is evidenced by, inter alia, the deluge of
customer complaints (made directly to it and on third-party
websites that it monitors and interacts with), and from standard
testing that would have been performed on All Day Deodorant.
As a result of Edgewell's active concealment and knowing omissions,
Plaintiffs and similarly situated purchasers of All Day Deodorant
have sustained cognizable damages. In addition to causing painful
and irritating skin issues, All Day Deodorant is unusable for the
intended purpose for which it is sold. Had Plaintiffs and Class
members known of the Defect at the time of their purchase, they
would not have bought All Day Deodorant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Defendants' Deodorant from a Walmart
stores.
Edgewell designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells
personal healthcare, hygiene, grooming, suncare, and feminine
hygiene products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
Rrita Osmani, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
rosmani@millershah.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennet, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
FAVORITE DAUGHTER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Favorite Daughter Holdings, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00475-WCG (E.D. Wis., Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Favorite Daughter Holdings provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://shopfavoritedaughter.com, the suit
contends.
On March 15, 2025, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's
website. Upon visiting the website, she encountered numerous
accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient. While
exploring the site, the Plaintiff encountered a pop-up that
confused her and made it difficult to continue browsing. These
barriers created a frustrating experience, and as a result, the
Plaintiff was unable to complete the purchase of the scarf on the
Defendant's website.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Favorite Daughter Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Ms. Hippe is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Favorite Daughter offers women's clothing and accessories,
including dresses, tops, outerwear, sweaters, skirts, jeans,
pajamas, jackets, joggers, underwear, scarfs and bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
FIVERR INC: Faces Miller Class Suit Over Junk Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FIVERR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02684 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 1,
2025) contends that the services advertised on Defendant's platform
can only be purchased for a price higher than the one the Defendant
advertises.
Plaintiff Miller purchased freelance services on Fiverr's platform
on Jan. 6, 2025. After completing the steps, Mr. Miller was
confronted with a junk $5.75 "service fee," amounting to 7 percent
of the listed price. Having already committed to it, Miller
completed the transaction and paid $85.75 total, including the
$5.75 junk fee.
As a result of the Defendant's drip pricing, the Plaintiff (1) was
lured into using Defendant's platform by misleadingly low
advertised prices; (2) was deprived of their ability to compare
prices among freelancers; (3) was made to invest time and effort
into selecting and finalizing a purchase without knowing how much
the purchase would cost; and (4) faced higher prices on Defendant's
platform and from other sellers than they would have absent
Defendant's drip pricing, the suit asserts.
For Defendant's violation of the General Business Law, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's illegal drip
pricing, as well as actual damages or $50, whichever is greater,
trebled, the suit adds.
Fiverr is an online platform that offers freelancing services to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Ian R. Bensberg, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
ibensberg@cohenmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborellli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
FLUENCE ENERGY: Faces Kramer Suit Over Common Stock Value Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
IGOR KRAMER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
FLUENCE ENERGY, INC., MANUEL PÉREZ DUBUC, DENNIS FEHR, JULIAN
NEBREDA, MANAVENDRA SIAL, AES CORPORATION, and AES GRID STABILITY,
LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00634 (E.D. Va., April 15, 2025) is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Fluence
Class A common stock between October 28, 2021, and February 10,
2025, inclusive.
The Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against Fluence and
certain of the Company's senior executives and directors and its
controlling shareholder.
During the Class Period, Fluence offered four energy storage
products that were specifically designed to address common customer
use cases. The four products each varied in scale and application.
On Feb. 10, 2025, Fluence issued a press release providing the
Company's financial results for its first fiscal quarter of 2025
(1Q25 Release). The 1Q25 Release revealed that Fluence was reducing
its fiscal 2025 revenue guidance from a range of $3.6 billion to
$4.4 billion to a range of $3.1 billion to $3.7 billion,
representing a reduction of approximately $600 million at the
midpoint.
On this news, the price of Fluence Class A common stock fell from
$13.07 per share on February 10, 2025, to $6.18 per share on
February 13, 2025, a more than 52% decline over a three-day trading
period, on above-average trading volume. 98. As a result of
defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of Fluence Class A common stock,
plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages under the federal securities laws.
Fluence is a global provider of energy storage products and
services and digital applications for renewable energy and storage.
Fluence is a holding company and conducts all of its business
through Fluence Energy, LLC. The Individual Defendants are officers
of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
THE OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street, Suite 501
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: ggaizo@robbinsllp.com
GBL CAPITAL: Faces Giancaspro Suit Over Pollen Music Festival
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GIANCASPRO; ALEXIS GERACI; and ADAKU IBEKWE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GBL CAPITAL
COINVEST MASTER SÀRL; GBL CAPITAL PARTICIPATIONS SÁRL; SIENNA
INVESTMENT MANAGERS LUXEMBOURG SA; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:25-cv-03275 (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2025) arises from the
spectacular failure of an international music festival startup
called "Pollen," which was likened to the British ,"Fyre Festival."
In early 2022, Pollen's co-founders and president bragged that the
company raised $150 million in funding from six well-known venture
capital funds. This was in addition to the $100 million dollars it
previously raised.
Pollen apparently used this huge influx of money to pay for, among
other things, the "housing" and "entertainment" expenses of the
Pollen’s co-founders, Callum Negus-Fancey (Chief Executive
Officer) and Liam Negus-Fancey (Chief Operating Officer).
In June 2022, Pollen stopped paying its hard-working employees.
Nonetheless, it urged those employees to continue working, claiming
that it was in the "final stages of negotiating a transaction" and
promising that, once it did so, it would pay "all that you [the
employees] are owed." That never happened. Instead, Pollen
terminated Plaintiffs and scores of other employees after repeated
inquiries about the late and missing paychecks, the suit contends.
The Plaintiffs file this action in an abundance of caution. They
have a separate action pending before this Court entitled Tayler
Ulmer, et al. v. StreetTeam Software, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-2226-HDV (AGRx) (Related Action), arising from the same
facts. They are concurrently seeking leave to amend to add
Defendants herein as defendants in the Related Action. If leave is
granted in the Related Action, Plaintiffs intend to dismiss this
action.
In the Related Action, the Plaintiffs and other former employees
sued NTE and StreetTeam, as well as the officers and directors
responsible for the non-payment of wages and WARN Act violations,
including the co-founders and president.
Sienna was one of Pollen's major investors, primarily through a
debt financing in April of 2022. On information and belief, it
demanded and received expansive control rights over the business.
Exercising these control rights, it caused Pollen to engage in two
rounds of mass layoffs in May and August of 2022 with the active
participation of the Pollen officers and directors. It also caused
Pollen to continue operating without paying staff in hopes that the
company could effectuate a fire sale, also with the assistance of
StreetTeam UK's board. As a consequence of its de facto control and
involvement in the non-payment and mass layoffs, Sienna is liable
under applicable state and federal law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Sienna accountable for its
role in causing the non-payment of wages earned by hundreds of
employees, and mass layoffs without required notice.
The parent company of the Pollen enterprise was StreetTeam Software
Limited. StreetTeam UK had two wholly owned subsidiaries in the
United States, Network Travel Experiences, Inc. and StreetTeam
Software LLC, which were fully dominated, controlled, and funded by
StreetTeam UK. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Damion D. D. Robinson, Esq.
David Markevitch, Esq.
ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP
8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 757-7778
E-mail: dr@robinsonmarkevitch.com
dm@robinsonmarkevitch.com
- and -
Valdi Licul, Esq.
Meredith Firetog, Esq.
William Baker, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 5th Avenue, Floor 5
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
E-mail: vlicul@wigdorlaw.com
mfiretog@wigdorlaw.com
wbaker@wigdorlaw.com
GLOBAL MAIL INC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLOBAL MAIL, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Esmeralda J. Ayala, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL MAIL, INC., LOGISTICS
EDGE, Case No. 25STCV11003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 14, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Global Mail, Inc., doing business as DHL Global Mail --
https://www.dhl.com/global-en/ -- provides logistics services. The
Company offers air, ocean, road and rail freight, postal,
transportation management, transborder, and transload
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840
Glendale, CA 91203-2920
Phone: 818-962-6465
Email: d.keledjian@d.law
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: Discloses Viewing Info to Meta, Goodman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN ROBERT GOODMAN, CHARLES JM. GREER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Hillsdale College, Case No.
1:25-cv-00417 (W.D. Mich., April 14, 2025) is a privacy class
action against Hillsdale for knowingly disclosing the personally
identifiable information of viewers of its online classes in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Defendant knowingly installs and operates hidden tracking code
from third-parties that transmits time-stamped,
personally-identifiable records of Plaintiffs' and Class members'
personally identifiable information and activities on Hillsdale's
website to those third-parties (Trackers). These Trackers include
code created by Meta Platforms, Inc., previously known as Facebook
which has been termed the Meta Pixel. Trackers like the Meta Pixel,
send third-parties time-stamped, personally-identifiable records of
Plaintiffs and Class members such as a unique and traceable
identifier known as their Facebook ID (FID), specific video titles,
and the videos' URLs identifying specific prerecorded videos each
Plaintiff requested or obtained (Personal Viewing Information).
Hillsdale disclosed this information by transmitting it to
third-parties like Meta. Hillsdale also knew or should have known
that those third-parties, like Meta in turn, upon information and
belief, disclosed Plaintiffs' Personal Viewing Information to other
businesses as well, says the suit.
Despite knowingly engaging in this conduct, and employing
professional staff to manage Hillsdale's marketing of its online
classes, including on Meta, Hillsdale failed to advise its website
users that it was disclosing their Personal Viewing Information.
Hillsdale did not have the informed written consent required by law
to make those disclosures and its conduct is expressly prohibited
by the VPPA, the suit added.
Hillsdale provides online classes via its website located at
online.hillsdale.edu.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian Levin, Esq.
Jacob Polin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
41000 Woodward Ave, Ste 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 270-7338
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
jacob@levinlawpa.com
- and -
Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
Alex Peraza, Esq.
DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B
Miami, Florida 33133
Telephone: (305) 374-1920
E-mail: jkaplan@dkrpa.com
aperaza@dkrpa.com
HITCHCOCK SHOES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HITCHCOCK SHOES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02694
(S.D.N.Y., Apr. 1, 2025) sues the Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.wideshoes.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.
On Aug. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase a pair of boots (Insley Black Waterproof Boot). Despite
the Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred her from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
Ms. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Hitchcock Shoes offers women's dress, casual styles, flats,
slip-ons, sneakers, orthopedic shoes, and even slippers in
extra-wide widths.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
HMS HOST USA: Applewhite Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khari Jamal Applewhite II, Individually, and on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated current and former employees v. HMS
HOST USA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02412-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn., April
14, 2025), is brought against Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid straight time wages,
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages owed
to Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former
employees who currently are or previously employed by Defendant.
The Defendant has had a centralized plan, policy, and practice
(scheme) of strictly enforcing restricted hours of compensable work
per day and per week ("budgeted labor") by incentivizing restaurant
managers to stay within or below such "budgeted labor" on the one
hand and, threatening to or taking adverse employment action
against those who fail to stay within such "budgeted labor" on the
other hand. The Defendant failed to maintain true and accurate pay
records pertaining to Plaintiff and those similarly situated, as is
required by the FLSA. The Defendant's violations were willful with
reckless disregard to clearly established FLSA wage and hour
requirements, and without a good faith basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
tipped employee during the relevant period herein.
HMS Host USA, Inc. owns and operates hundreds of various food and
beverage franchisees throughout the United States.[BN].
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
Cooper P. Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
HOME DEPOT: Maciel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. The case is styled as Steven Maciel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005354 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., April 14, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an
American multinational home improvement retail corporation that
sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services,
including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com
HZ OPS HOLDINGS: Garcia Suit Removed to D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Denajah Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. HZ OPS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2025-CV-030431 was removed from the District Court of El Paso
County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on April 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01183.
In her Complaint, Garcia alleges that HZ's compensation policies
violate Colorado wage and hour law and constitute civil theft.
Garcia also seeks to represent a putative class of "all individuals
who worked as non-exempt employees for Defendant in Colorado from
six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to present." Garcia
seeks purported unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
penalties, attorney' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief on behalf of herself and the alleged putative
class.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
William J. Leone, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3050
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 801-2700
Facsimile: (303) 801-2777
Email: william.leone@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Kimberly F. Cheeseman, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Phone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
Email: kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Pete Curran, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
Phone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
Email: pete.curran@nortonrosefulbright.com
INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Fails to Provide 60-Day Notice Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MCCULLOUGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INSIGHT FOUNDATION OF HILLSIDE, INSIGHT FOUNDATION OF
TRUMBULL, and FIRDAUS FOUNDATION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00644-BYP (N.D.
Ohio, Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to provide 60
days advance written notice of their terminations, as required by
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and for all other similarly
situated employees, seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60
days' pay and ERISA benefits, pursuant to the WARN Act.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and for all other
similarly situated employees, seeks the repayment of amounts
deducted for fringe benefits from his wages for contributions that
the Defendants retained; and compensation for accrued but unpaid
vacation time from the Defendants, the suit says.
The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the Defendants from dissolving
their corporate entities and dissipating their assets pending
resolution of the claims at issue herein. Mr. McCullough was
employed by Defendants, as a single employer, at the Hillside
Facility until his layoff without cause on March 28, 2025.
Insight Hillside is registered to do business as "Insight Hospital
and Medical Center Hillside."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Dubyak, Esq.
Christina C. Spallina, Esq.
DUBYAK NELSON, LLC
6105 Parkland Blvd, Suite 230
Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
Telephone: (216) 364-0500
Facsimile: (216) 364-0505
E-mail: rdubyak@dubyaknelson.com
cspallina@dubyaknelson.com
KIPLING RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kipling Retail, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-01465 (D. Minn.,
April 15, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website
(www.kipling-usa.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
KMAM MANAGEMENT: Zamora Files Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KMAM Management LLC.
The case is styled as William Zamora, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KMAM Management LLC doing business
as: Karl Malone Auto Group, Case No. 2:25-cv-00288-CMR (N.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
KMAM Management LLC doing business as The Karl Malone Auto Group --
https://www.karlmaloneauto.com/ -- is the trusted source for all
automotive and powersports needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared D. Scott, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
Fax: (801) 364-7697
Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com
LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Harris Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARRIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LEE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00107 (E.D. Tenn.,
Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to safeguard and
protect the personal information of the Plaintiff and the Class
from a recent cyberattack and data breach.
In March 2024, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained
access to Defendant's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, names,
Social Security numbers, and/or education-related information. The
Defendant waited over one year to notice the Plaintiff and Class
members of the Data Breach, and failed to state whether it was able
to contain or end the cybersecurity threat, leaving victims to fear
whether the PII that the Defendant continues to maintain is secure,
the suit contends.
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 and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, alleges the suit.
Mr. Harris is an individual citizen of North Carolina and received
a letter from the Defendant notifying him of the Data Breach. Mr.
Harris's data was exposed because he was a prospective student of
Lee University.
Lee University is an undergraduate and graduate Christian
university.[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
LELAND STANFORD: Chism Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kenneth Chism, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, A CALIFORNIA STATUTORY CORPORATION AND THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV459595 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03331.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are collectively liable to
Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Failure to Provide
Meal Periods pursuant to California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order;
Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods pursuant to California
Labor Code and IWC Wage Order; Failure to pay Minimum Wages
pursuant to California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order; Failure to
Pay Overtime Wages pursuant to California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Order; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting
Employees pursuant to California Labor Code; Failure to Furnish
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements pursuant to California Labor Code
and IWC Wage Order; Failure to Maintain Required Records pursuant
to California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order; Failure to Indemnify
Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of
Duties pursuant to Labor Code; Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Steven M. Zimmerman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Steve.Zimmerman@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
Dahn A. Levine, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
Email: Ben.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
Dahn.Levine@jacksonlewis.com
LEVY PREMIUM: Fails to Provide 60-Day Notice Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANIBAL OSUNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE, LP, Case No. 1:25-cv-03504
(N.D. Ill., Apr. 1, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
provide 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(the "WARN Act").
The Defendant operates a plant located at 3333 Al Davis Way, Las
Vegas, NV 89118 ("Facility"), where the Plaintiff and the putative
class worked. Over the last 90 days, the Defendant abruptly
terminated over one thousand employees, unilaterally and without
proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees
and at least 33% of active full-time employees, including the
Plaintiff, at the Facility, the suit contends.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant informed a group of employees,
including the Plaintiff, at the Facility, that their jobs would be
terminated on March 31, 2025.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have
received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, the suit
asserts.
By failing to provide its affected employees who were temporarily
or permanently terminated on Feb. 20, 2025, with proper WARN Act
Notices and other benefits, the Defendant acted willfully and
cannot establish that they had any reasonable grounds or basis for
believing their actions were not in violation of the WARN Act, the
suit adds.
Plaintiff Anibal Osuna is a citizen of the United States and
resident of Nevada. He was employed by the Defendant for over six
months.
Levy Premium offers seafood, Italian meal, drinks, and other
related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
LUXURY BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Luxury Brand Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03471
(N.D. Ill., Apr. 1, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons Pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Luxury Brand Holdings provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://ross-simons.com, the suit contends.
On March 20, 2025, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's
website, which specializes in fine jewelry and watches. However,
while she was navigating the website, she encountered multiple
accessibility issues that caused significant frustration. When she
added the desired item to the cart, a confirmation message
appeared, but it was not announced, leaving her unsure if the item
was successfully added to the cart. The link from the mini-cart
dialog box, which was supposed to take her to the checkout page,
led her instead to the cart page. This added to her confusion, and
she was unable to proceed with checkout and complete her purchase.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Luxury Brand Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Ms. Henry is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Luxury Brand Holdings provides to the public a website known as
Ross-simons.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view fine jewelry,
including rings, necklaces, bracelets, earrings, and watches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
M.F. MAHER INC: Ponce Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marco A. Ponce, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. M.F. MAHER, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CU25-01938
was removed from Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Solano, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on April 14, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-at-00479.
The Class Action Complaint alleged causes of action for 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 business expenses, failure to timely pay final
wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey G. McClure, Esq.
Anne Kelson Hummel, Esq.
DAVENPORT GERSTNER & McCLURE
2540 Camino Diablo, Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: (925) 279-3430
Fax: (925) 932-1961
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Orlando Police Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ORLANDO POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES,
INC., EDDIE CAPEL, and DENNIS B. STORY, Case No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ
(N.D. Ga., April 15, 2025) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Manhattan Associates securities between July 24, 2024 and
February 7, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
According to the complaint, Manhattan Associates generates revenue
through cloud-based software subscriptions, software licenses,
maintenance contracts, hardware sales, and related services. The
Company's Services segment is a critical part of Manhattan
Associates' business, accounting for more than 50% of the Company's
2024 full-year revenue. Such services include advising and
assisting customers in planning and implementing Manhattan
Associates' solutions.
Manhattan Associates offers its software either on-premise (hosted
locally on its customers' servers) or on the cloud (hosted remotely
on third-party servers). During the Class Period, Manhattan
Associates focused on moving many of its on-premise customers to
cloud-based services because the Company generates higher revenues
per user from its cloud-based software.
Accordingly, the Defendants touted services as an ongoing strength
for Manhattan Associates while claiming that cloud sales were
fueling the growth of its services business. The Defendants also
made projections concerning Manhattan Associates' expected 2025
revenue while expressing confidence in the Company's ability to
forecast guidance despite macroeconomic fluctuations.
The Plaintiff contends that such claims were materially false and
misleading and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
Manhattan Associates' business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that customer
delays and deferrals were resulting in a slowdown to the Company's
services revenue growth.
The truth began to emerge on January 28, 2025, when Manhattan
Associates reported its fourth quarter and full-year 2024 financial
results and announced reduced 2025 revenue guidance. The Company
attributed these results and lowered guidance largely to a decline
in its service revenue. On this news, Manhattan Associates' stock
price dropped $72.26 per share, or 24.5 percent, to close at
$222.84 per share on January 29, 2025. 7.
The truth was further revealed to the market on February 10, 2025,
when the Company announced that its CEO, Eddie Capel, was retiring
that same week. On this news, the price of Manhattan Associates'
stock price dropped another $23.20, or 11.5 percent, to close at
$177.70 per share on February 10, 2025.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit says.
Manhattan Associates is an Atlanta, Georgia based provider of
software solutions designed to manage supply chains for retailers,
wholesalers, manufacturers, logistics providers and other
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
Katherine L. D'Ambrosio, Esq.
COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC
75 14th Street, NE, Suite 2475
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: (404) 407-5250
Facsimile: (404) 600-1624
E-mail: jchally@cgc-law.com
kdambrosio@cgc-law.com
- and -
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
Connor C. Boehme, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
cboehme@labaton.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Stuart Kaufman, Esq.
KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
MARS PETCARE US: Addison Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Addison, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MARS PETCARE US, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00456-UNA (D. Del.,
April 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees
worked, or they were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours in one or
more workweek(s) during the 3 years immediately preceding the
filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production/manufacturing employees would generally arrive
to Defendant's facilities prior to the start of their scheduled
shift to begin donning their sanitary clothing and other protective
equipment before clocking in prior to the scheduled start of their
shift.
However, because Defendant rounded their clock in times up to the
scheduled start of their shifts, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production/manufacturing employees were not compensated
for this time. The Defendant's application of its rounding policy,
coupled with the general prohibition against clocking in more than
several minutes before the scheduled start of employees' shifts and
permitting hourly employees to begin donning their sanitary
clothing and other protective equipment, ensured that employees'
time rounded systematically in Defendant's favor.
The Defendant's policies and practices resulted, over a period of
time, in a failure to compensate its employees for all the time
they actually worked in violation of the FLSA. As a result of
Defendant's companywide policy and/or practice of rounding its
employees' hours worked, Defendant knew or had reason to know that
it was not compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
production/manufacturing employees for all hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from August 2022 until
August 2023.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of nutrition and therapeutic health
products for pets such as dogs, cats, horses, and fish. Products
Defendant manufactures include pet food, pet treats, and cat
litter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: 330-470-4428
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
MINT MOBILE: May CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled Greg May, Plaintiff v. Mint Mobile, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 30-2025-01464892-CU-NP-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 9,
2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:25-cv-00731 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of a
putative class of California callers, alleges that Defendant
violated section 632.7 of CIPA by recording calls to its customer
service number without first providing a recording disclosure.
Headquartered in Costa Mesa, CA, Mint Mobile, LLC provides wireless
prepaid services in the United States. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com
- and -
Tracy Yao, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
55 2nd Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 243-1000
Facsimile: (415) 243-1001
E-mail: tracy.yao@alston.com
NATIONAL CABLE: Discloses Personal Viewing Info to FB, Horan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Horan and John Sullivan, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. National Cable Satellite Corporation,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01114 (D.D.C., April 14, 2025) is a consumer
digital privacy class action complaint brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and all persons with Facebook accounts who have
subscribed to either a C-SPAN account, C-SPAN's newsletters or for
C-SPAN Classroom and interacted with videos on the Cable-Satellite
Public Affairs Network website c-span.org.
C-SPAN is owned and operated by Defendant National Cable Satellite
Corporation. The federal Video Protection Privacy Act protects
consumer privacy by providing for a federal cause of action against
"a video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any
person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer
of such provider", without express consent. Over the past two
years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues
to transmit today) its Subscribers' personally identifying video
viewing information to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.
(Facebook), using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta
Pixel," which the Defendant installed and configured on its
Website, the suit says.
The information Defendant allegedly disclosed (and continues to
disclose) to Facebook via the Meta Pixel includes the Subscribers'
Facebook ID, the title of the specific prerecorded video material,
and the URL of the video, that each of its Subscribers accessed on
its Website. An FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked to a
specific Facebook profile. A Facebook profile, in turn, identifies
by name the specific person to whom the profile belongs (and also
contains other personally identifying information about the
person).
The Defendant owns and operates the Website at issue in this
litigation, c-span.org.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan M. Doerrer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF STAN M. DOERRER PLLC
950 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA. 22314
Telephone: (703) 348-4646
Facsimile: (703) 348-0048
E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.⃰
CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC
111 West Washington Street Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (872) 215-6205
E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Lozano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA MARISOL LOZANO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-02720
(S.D.N.Y., Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard the highly-sensitive personal
information of its students and student-applicants.
The suit says that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal information-which they entrusted to the Defendant-was
targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed by an unknown threat
actor in or around March 2025.
The PII compromised in the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' full names, test scores, majors, cities, and zip
codes, student applications, demographic data, citizenship
statuses, and information related to family members and financial
aid. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by
cyber-criminals, and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals,
who target PII due to its value to identity thieves.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete injuries including, invasion of privacy; theft of
their PII; lost or diminished value of their PII; lost time and
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; and the continued and certainly
increased risk to their PII, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was an applicant to NYU for the 2020-2021 school year
and is currently enrolled as a student at NYU.
The Defendant is a private university based in New York, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
Ashley Crooks, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
acrooks@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
OFFBEAT VENTURES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Offbeat Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04081 (N.D.
Ill., April 15, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website
(Vinylmeplease.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:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
OLD NAVY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. OLD NAVY LLC D/B/A OLD
NAVY, Case No. 1:25-cv-20779 (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2025) is a class
action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant owns, operates and oversees the commercial restaurant
within the subject commercial property, which is open to the public
located within the commercial property. The subject commercial
property and restaurant are open to the public and are located in
Miami, Florida.
The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property, to include
visits to the commercial property and businesses located within the
commercial property on Dec. 12, 2024, and encountered multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the commercial property.
He often visits the commercial property and businesses located
within the commercial property in order to avail himself of the
goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately
35 miles from his residence. He plans to return to the commercial
property within two (2) months from the date of the filing of this
Complaint.
The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial
restaurant business located within the commercial property to be
rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural
barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant
business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the suit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
OLINSKY & ASSOCIATES: Leon-Roman Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olinsky & Associates,
PLLC. The case is styled as Felipe Leon-Roman, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Olinsky & Associates, PLLC,
Case No. 5:25-cv-00462-ECC-TWD (N.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Olinsky -- https://windisability.com/ -- is a law firm based in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
ORRSTOWN BANK: Pryde Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron Pryde, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ORRSTOWN BANK, Case No. 2025-CV-01941
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00667-KMN.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts class action claims against
Orrstown for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Pennsylvania's Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Plaintiff bases those
claims on Orrstown's alleged failure to notify its customers of its
overdraft fee practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas F. Burke, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Phone: 215.665.8500
Fax: 215.864.8999
Email: burket@ballardspahr.com
OTS SOLUTIONS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Uwaoma Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OTS SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Danielle Uwaoma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OTS Solutions, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01902-KK-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, is brought
against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor
Code.
On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which Judge Kenly Kiya Kato denied on Mar. 7, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned Uwaoma v. OTS Solutions, LLC, et
al., Case No. 25-2174, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 8,
2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 16, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 16, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee DANIELLE UWAOMA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, PC
1801 Century Park, E Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendants-Appellants OTS SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. are represented
by:
Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and –
Amelia Anne McDermott, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
3952 D. Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 198
San Diego, CA 92117
- and –
Alvin Arceo, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
101 2nd Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
PANGAEA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Pangaea Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03467 (N.D. Ill., Apr.
1, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Pangaea Holdings provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://luminskin.com, the suit contends.
On March 19, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to purchase a daily
moisturizer from the Defendant's website. However, as he attempted
to complete his purchase, he encountered numerous frustrating
accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to
navigate the site independently.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Pangaea Holdings' policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind
and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Cole is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Pangaea is a well-known online shop specializing in men's skincare
products made from natural ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
PAULA & CHLO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Paula & Chlo, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04020 (N.D. Ill.,
April 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Paulaandchlo.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Paula & Chlo provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://paulaandchlo.com.
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.
Paulaandchlo.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Paula &
Chlo. Yet, Paulaandchlo.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers
make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even
complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Paula & Chlo excludes
the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says
the suit.
The Defendant controls and operates Paulaandchlo.com in the State
of Illinois and throughout the United States. 28. Paulaandchlo.com
is a commercial website that offers products and services for
online sale. The online store allows the user to view women's
clothing and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of
other functions.[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
PEPSICO INC: Johnson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under IMWL
-------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill., April
14, 2025 seeks to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
According to the complaint, PepsiCo implemented an illegal policy
requiring its non-exempt workers to undergo a COVID-19 screening
each shift without pay. This physical and medical examination
constitutes compensable time that was worked by Johnson. PepsiCo's
conduct violates the state laws of Illinois because, for the time
Johnson and other employees worked over 40 hours a week, PepsiCo
failed to pay overtime wages as required by the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law. PepsiCo's conduct also violates the state laws of
Illinois because PepsiCo failed to pay Illinois employees all their
earned wages as required by the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, asserts the suit.
Plaintiff Johnson further alleges PepsiCo's conduct violated the
common law of Illinois and as a result, he is owed unpaid straight
time compensation in the weeks when he worked less than 40 hours
under the theory of Quantum Meruit.
Johnson worked for PepsiCo as an hourly, non-exempt employee. On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated employees,
Johnson bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.
The IMWL Class Members are all current and former hourly paid
employees of PepsiCo who underwent a COVID-19 screening and worked
more than 40 hours during at least one week in Illinois in the
three-year period before the filing of this lawsuit until final
resolution of this Action.
PepsiCo operates plants for its business operations in Illinois and
across the country. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999 5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PIKOLINOS USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Pikolinos USA, Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-04018 (N.D. Ill., April
14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://pikolinos.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Pikolinos USA provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://pikolinos.com. 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 the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Pikolinos.com provides the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Pikolinos
USA. Yet, Pikolinos.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, asserts the Court.
Thus, Pikolinos USA 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, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
leather sandals on Pikolinos.com. Despite his efforts, however,
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations.
The Defendant controls and operates Pikolinos.com in the State of
Illinois and throughout the United States.[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
PLATINUM NINE: Baum Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sam Baum, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PLATINUM NINE HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a
NORTHWEST AMBULANCE CRITICAL CARE TRANSPORT, a Washington limited
liability company, Case No. 25-2-01171-31 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of
Snohomish, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on April 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-00671.
The Plaintiff purports to allege, on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of a putative class of individuals, that Defendant
committed unlawful compensation practices in violation of
Washington State law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Dean Petitta, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone (818) 230-7502
Facsimile (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James M. Shore, Esq.
Aaron R. Doyer, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.624.0900
Facsimile: 206.386.7500
Email: jim.shore@stoel.com
aaron.doyer@stoel.com
REFUAH HEALTH: Esposito Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN ESPOSITO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Dawn Esposito, individually and on behalf of and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Refuah Health Center,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-5039, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Rockland, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
brought against the Defendant alleging various claims arising out
of a 2021 data breach which compromised the Plaintiff's and
similarly situated patients' personal identifying information (PII)
and personal health information (PHI).
On March 12, 2024, Refuah Health Center, Inc. was terminated from
the case and the United States of America was substituted as the
new defendant.
On Apr. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of
judgment.
On July 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction.
On Mar. 3, 2025, Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an Order granting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's
motion for entry of judgment. Accordingly, the Court ordered that
the Plaintiff's claims against the United States are dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust under 28 U.S.C. Section
2675(a).
The appellate case is entitled Esposito v. Refuah Health Center,
Inc., Case No. 25-765, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAWN ESPOSITO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Defendant-Appellee REFUAH HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by:
Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
REFUAH HEALTH: Krandle Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA KRANDLE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Rebecca Krandle, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Refuah Health
Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-4977, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Rockland, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
brought against the Defendant alleging various claims arising out
of a 2021 data breach which compromised the Plaintiff's and
similarly situated patients' personal identifying information (PII)
and personal health information (PHI).
On March 12, 2024, Refuah Health Center, Inc. was terminated from
the case and the United States of America was substituted as the
new defendant.
On Apr. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of
judgment.
On July 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction.
On Mar. 3, 2025, Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an Order granting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's
motion for entry of judgment. Accordingly, the Court ordered that
the Plaintiff's claims against the United States are dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust under 28 U.S.C. Section
2675(a).
The appellate case is entitled Krandle v. Refuah Health Center,
Inc., Case No. 25-766, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant REBECCA KRANDLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Liskow, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
REGENCY INTEGRATED: Grandin Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER GRANDIN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
REGENCY INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00025
(S.D. Tex., April 15, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
damages from Regency pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Regency employed Grandin as one of its Hourly Employees. Grandin
and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a
workweek. Accordingly, Regency pays Grandin and the other Hourly
Employees by the hour. But Regency does not pay Grandin and the
other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours they work in excess
of 40 a workweek. Instead, Regency pays Grandin and the other
Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include
in these employees’ regular rates of pay for overtime purposes
(Regency's "bonus pay scheme"), says the suit.
Regency's bonus pay scheme allegedly violates the FLSA by failing
to compensate Grandin and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5
times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration—for
all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The putative FLSA
collective of similarly situated employees is defined as:
"All hourly Regency employees who were paid a bonus during the
last three years through final resolution of this action (the
"Hourly Employees").
Regency "manages more than 60 non-profit skilled nursing facilities
across Texas with more than 6,000 team members. Additionally,
Regency Integrated Health Services manages a Medicare Advantage
Plan, a Pharmacy, and a Nurse Practitioner Company."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SEASIDE BREEZE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Seaside Breeze, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04012 (N.D.
Ill., April 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, Whiskeycaviar.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://whiskeycaviar.com. 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 the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Whiskeycaviar.com provides public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Seaside
Breeze. Yet, Whiskeycaviar.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website, asserts the suit.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Seaside Breeze 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, the suit adds.
The Defendant controls and operates Whiskeycaviar.com in the State
of Illinois and throughout the United States.
Whiskeycaviar.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
rare and exceptional spirits, make purchases, and perform a variety
of other functions. 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
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Awaits Order Dismissing "Levy"
--------------------------------------------------
On January 18, 2024, John F. Levy, a former member of the board of
directors of Singularity Future Technology Ltd., filed a claim
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Levy v. Singularity Future Technology
Ltd., f/k/a Sino-Global Shipping America Ltd., 24-cv-0384-NG-JMW.
The Lawsuit is for reimbursement and advancement of legal fees,
costs, and expenses incurred in connection with defending the
action Piero Crivellaro v. Singularity Future Technology Ltd.,
22-cv-07499, in which Levy was named as an individual defendant. On
October 25, 2024, the Court filed an Opinion and Order finding the
Company in default of the Lawsuit. On November 21, 2024, Levy filed
an Application for Damages, which remains pending.
On April 1, 2025, Levy and the Company entered into a confidential
settlement and mutual release agreement to fully resolve the
Lawsuit.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company paid a sum of one
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to Blank Rome LLP, which
was counsel to Levy with regard to matters pertaining to (i) the
Lawsuit; and (ii) Levy serving on the Board of the Company,
including serving as a member of an independent special committee
of the Board. The Settlement Payment reimbursed Levy for all legal
fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Levy with regard to his
service on and to the Board and on and to the Special Committee and
with regard to the legal fees and expenses Levy incurred so far in
(i) defending the Class Action Lawsuit; and (ii) prosecuting the
Lawsuit.
Within three business days of full payment of the Settlement
Payment, Levy agrees to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice by
filing a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Upon full payment of the Settlement Payment, each of Levy and the
Company fully releases and discharges the other from all past and
present claims, obligations, disputes, and liabilities arising from
prior agreements or dealings, except for claims arising from a
breach of this Settlement Agreement, the Company disclosed in a
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is into the arrangement of
transportation of freight & cargo based in New York.
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Johnson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE KENNETH JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON
COMPANIES, LLC and LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-00248-JAM (W.D. Mo., April 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within their network systems on November 20,
2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is a company that
provides insurance, risk management, and employee-benefit
management services, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
Lockton Companies, LLC is a company that provides insurance, risk
management, and employee-benefit management services, headquartered
in Kansas City, Missouri. [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
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33601
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Whiting Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS WHITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00243-BCW (W.D. Mo., April 7, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach on November 20, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is an insurance company
based in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Garvey, Esq.
Colleen Garvey, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
701 Market Street, Ste. 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 390-6750
Facsimile: (314) 255-5419
Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
SOUTHWEST HEALTHCARE: McCormick Sues Over Wage & Hour Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALONNA MCCORMICK, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, SNAPMEDTECH,
INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03184 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2025)
arises from Defendants' alleged systematic mistreatment of their
employees in violation of the California's wage and hour laws.
The Plaintiff worked daily or weekly overtime while employed with
Defendants. However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class
members all their earned wages in a timely fashion throughout
employment and upon termination. Among other things, the Plaintiff
and Class members were not provided legally adequate meal periods
and accurate itemized wage statements.
SW Healthcare owns and operates several hospitals and clinics in
California including the Corona Regional Medical Center. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP PC
1001 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 900
Telephone: (213) 382-2222
Facsimile: (213) 382-2230
E-mail: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Issues Order Dismissing Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2024, Spire Global Inc. and two of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities
law class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Michal Bousso v. Spire
Global, Inc. et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-1458 (the "Bousso
Lawsuit").
On October 14, 2024, a second plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit
against us and three current or former executive officers, also in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, captioned Kohei Tagawa v. Spire Global, Inc. et al.,
Court File No. 1:24-cv-1810 (the "Tagawa Lawsuit").
On November 22, 2024, the court consolidated the Bousso Lawsuit and
the Tagawa Lawsuit, appointed Michal Bousso as lead plaintiff, and
renamed the case to "In re Spire Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Master File No. 1:24-cv-1458-MSN-WEF (the "Master
Securities Lawsuit").
On December 23, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Master Securities Lawsuit, which alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder),
arising from or relating to our announcements in August 2024 that
certain of our previously issued audited and unaudited financial
statements should not be relied upon.
The Plaintiff alleges that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading statements relating to (1) how revenue was
recognized for pre-space services for certain space contracts, and
(2) how costs for certain contracts were characterized. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between May 11, 2022 and
August 14, 2024.
The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys'
fees and costs. The defendants are vigorously defending this
lawsuit. On January 22, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. The court in the Master
Securities Lawsuit held argument on our motion to dismiss on March
14, 2025. After hearing argument from both sides, the court issued
its order on the record dismissing the Master Securities Lawsuit
without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiff 30 days to
consider whether to amend.
Spire Global is a provider of satellite data, analytics and
services. The Company operates a proprietary constellation of
multi-purpose nanosatellites and provides subscription access to
its data for a range of commercial applications such as shipping
vessel monitoring, aviation guidance, and weather forecasting.
SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Urdan Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Games
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAYDEN URDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED d/b/a STAKE.US,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03736 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois
Loss Recovery Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's operation of illegal online
casino games in Illinois. According to the complaint, the Defendant
created Stake.us, a platform marketed to U.S. consumers as a
so-called "social casino" that does not permit real gambling. But
in reality, Defendant Stake.us is a virtual clone of Stake.com,
rebranded to mislead regulators and consumers into believing it
offers harmless gameplay instead of an unlawful gambling. By
offering Stake Cash that can be wagered on games of chance over the
Internet and redeemed for real money, Stake is operating an
unlicensed and illegal online casino. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals seek an order requiring the Defendant to (1)
cease the operation of its gambling devices, and (2) return all
lost monies, with costs.
Sweepsteaks Limited, doing business as Stake.us, is an operator of
online casino games, located in Cyprus. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Michael Ovca, Esq.
Hannah Hilligoss, Esq.
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
Email: ewadescott@edelson.com
movca@edelson.com
hhilligoss@edelson.com
ascharg@edelson.com
TEMPEL STEEL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Buckner Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BUCKNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEMPEL STEEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04022 (N.D.
Ill., April 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to
protect highly sensitive data.
Accordingly, in failing to adequately protect its employees' data,
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, the Defendant violated state and federal law and
harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees.
The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence
and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Private
Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. The Defendant
failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the
Data Breach, says the suit.
The Defendant describes itself as a "a leading manufacturer of
high-precision magnetic steel laminations for the motors,
transformers, and generators used in the automotive, industrial and
energy markets, and beyond."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL: 60611-4501
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 863-1109
E-mail: straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
TRADE DESK: Illegally Tracks and Collects Users' Data, Turner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-03136 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of common law invasion of privacy,
Section 1 of the California Constitution, the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of
collecting and monetizing directly identifiable user data from
millions of U.S. residents without their knowledge using a new form
of online tracking tool called Unified ID and its recent version
Unified ID 2.0. UID1 and UID2 were wildly successful and can be
found across websites, mobile applications, TV products, and
streaming services. Because these identifiers are both unique and
persistent, the Defendant created a way to track users everywhere,
suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members had no knowledge that
the Defendant was using unique identifiers to track them across the
web, mobile applications, and other internet-connected devices, or
that it was using this data to facilitate highly specific targeted
advertising. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the
privacy of the Plaintiff and Class members were invaded, says the
suit.
The Trade Desk, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal
place of business located in Ventura, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
P.O. Box 3835
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Telephone: (805) 543-0990
Facsimile: (805) 543-0980
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Rachel Kesten, Esq.
Yuanchen Lu, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
rkesten@lowey.com
ylu@lowey.com
U.S. BANCORP: Faces Futo Class Suit Over Bank Deposit Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SAUL FUTO and JAMES BARTLEY ELLIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANCORP; and U.S. BANCORP
INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-01464-ECT-DJF (D. Minn., April
15, 2025) seeks to recover damages arising out of Defendants'
unlawful conduct related to their Bank Deposit Program by which
USBI transfers cash from its customers' accounts into
interest-bearing deposit accounts at U.S. Bank National
Association, an affiliate of USBI and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
U.S. Bancorp, and pays unreasonably low interest payments to
customers on that cash.
According to the complaint. the primary purpose of the Bank Deposit
Program is to provide customers with interest on their uninvested
cash. However, Defendants used their Bank Deposit Program to
generate substantial returns on customers’ cash, almost none of
which was returned to customers in the form of reasonable interest
on their deposits. While asserting in its Sweep Program Disclosure
Statement that it operates the Bank Deposit Program as its
customers' agent, USBI and its affiliate U.S. Bank retain nearly
all the returns their customers' cash generates.
The Defendants facilitate this by offering an unreasonably low
interest rate on cash in the Bank Deposit Program -- currently
between 0.23% and 1.80% (depending on a customer’s cash balance)
-- to customers, even as competing financial institutions including
Vanguard and Fidelity offer interest rates more than 17 times
higher on their own customers' swept cash.
The Bank Deposit Program is primarily a source of income for U.S.
Bancorp. While its customers receive unreasonable, below-market
interest rates on cash held in the Program, U.S. Bancorp profits
significantly. In violation of their express and implied
obligations, the Defendants designed, implemented, and operated the
Bank Deposit Program to benefit themselves at the expense of their
customers, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California and resides in San Diego,
California. Mr. Futo has had an IRA account through USBI, with USBI
as IRA Custodian, since 2016.
The Defendant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant U.S Bancorp,
is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
U.S. Bancorp is a registered broker-dealer with the SEC, a member
firm of FINRA, and a member of the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation. USBI conducts business with respect to brokerage
accounts as "U.S. Wealth Management."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Catherine Sung-Yun Smith, Esq.
Shashi K. Gowda, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
csmith@gustafsongluek.com
sgowda@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 -
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
myeates@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Michael A. Innes, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
Grant Y. Lee, Esq.
Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
minnes@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
glee@carellabyrne.com
zjacobs@carellabyrne.com
jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
ULTIMATE HEATING: Henriques Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Henriquez, Jose Chevez, Rudy Chevez, and Jose Licona, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v.
Ultimate Heating & Cooling Service Corp. d/b/a Ultimate Heating &
Cooling, and Orlando Polanco, Case No. 2:25-cv-01796-NJC-LGD
(E.D.N.Y., Apr. 1, 2025) seeks to recover wages paid at less than
the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs seeks to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective
action on behalf of a collective group of persons defined as
follows:
"All persons who are or were formerly employed by the
Defendants in the United States at any time since March 31,
2022, to the entry of judgment in this case (the "Collective
Action Period"), who were construction employees, and who were
not paid statutory minimum wages and/or overtime compensation
at rates at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek
(the "Collective Action Members")."
The Plaintiffs further complain that they are entitled to
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, and back wages for overtime work for which the defendants
willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay as required by the New
York Labor Law.
Mr. Henriquez was working 75 hours per week when he worked six days
per week, and 62.5 hours per week when he worked five days per week
for the Defendants. He was paid weekly by the Defendant Orlando
Polanco, partially in cash ($300) and partially by check ($400).
Ultimate Heating owns and operates a residential heating and
cooling services business based in Long Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Wiley Sues Over Agency Action Impact on Coal Miners
------------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official
capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00227 (S.D. W. Va., April 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for declaratory judgment and violation of
Administrative Procedure Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' arbitrary, capricious, and
unlawful action in terminating personnel in the Respiratory Health
Division of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health without advance notice. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated coal miners lost any effective means by which
they can use his job transfer rights under the Coal Workers' Health
Surveillance Program.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaration that the Defendants
comply with their statutory duties under 30 U.S.C. to require
examinations of coal miners and afford job transfer rights, provide
authority for examinations of all miners generally, and enforce
anti-backsliding provisions that no administration may weaken
protections for miners.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is a government
agency in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
PETSONK PLLC
P.O. Box 1045
Beckley, WV 25802
Telephone: (304) 712-9858
Facsimile: (304) 986-4633
Email: sam@petsonk.com
- and -
Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
Mountain State Justice, Inc.
1217 Quarrier Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 344-5565
Facsimile: (304) 344-3145
Email: bren@msjlaw.org
UPSIDE NORTH AMERICA: Blind Can't Access Website, Pittman Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UPSIDE (NORTH AMERICA), LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-03718 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.theupside.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: changing of content without advance warning,
inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements,
ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
The Upside (North America), LLC is a company that sells online
goods and services in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
VENTURE GLOBAL: Faces Firstfire Securities Suit Over Sales Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIRSTFIRE GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENTURE GLOBAL, INC.,
MICHAEL SABEL, JONATHAN THAYER, ROBERT PENDER, SARAH BLAKE, SARI
GRANAT, ANDREW OREKAR, THOMAS J. REID, JIMMY STATON, RODERICK
CHRISTIE, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and
BofA SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00633 (E.D. Va., April 15,
2025) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Venture Global pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Venture Global's January 24, 2025 initial public stock offering
(the "IPO"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.
Venture Global, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, construction, and production of natural gas
liquefaction and export projects near the U.S. Gulf Coast in
Louisiana. On Dec. 20, 2024, Venture Global filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form S-1. After several amendments, on
January 24, 2025, Venture Global and the Underwriter Defendants
priced the IPO and filed the final Prospectus for the IPO, which
formed part of the Registration Statement (Registration Statement).
The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.
By the time of the IPO, Venture Global had completed its fourth
fiscal quarter of 2024. The Company's fourth quarter and year end
results, however, were not provided in the Registration Statement.
The omission of this information was material as the Company's
fourth quarter financial performance was worse than the market
expected and, therefore, would have revealed that the Company’s
future earnings and prospects were far more risky than portrayed in
the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement purported to
detail "Risk Warnings" about Venture Global and its operations.
These risk warnings were insufficient because, at the time of the
IPO, the Company's fourth quarter had been complete for almost a
month and, accordingly, warning about hypothetical risks, when in
fact some of those risks had already materialized, was materially
misleading, says the suit.
The IPO was successful for the Company and the Underwriter
Defendants, who sold 70 million shares of Venture Global common
stock to the public at $25 per share, raising $1.75 billion in
gross proceeds. On March 6, 2025, before the market opened, Venture
Global issued a press release announcing the Company's financial
results for the fourth quarter and the year ended December 31,
2024. News reports highlighted that the Company posted earnings per
share of $0.33 on revenue of $1.52 billion, which missed the
average analyst estimate of $0.76 per share on revenues of $1.92
billion, that sales unexpectedly fell 6.7% year-over-year in the
period, and that the Company had substantially increased its cost
estimates for the Plaquemines Project.
On March 6, 2025, the price of Venture Global stock fell from
$14.20 per share to $9.08 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume.
The Plaintiff purchased Venture Global common stock in the IPO, and
was damaged thereby.
Venture Global engages in the development, construction, and
production of natural gas liquefaction and export projects near the
U.S. Gulf Coast in Louisiana. The Individual Defendants are
officers of the company.
Defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and
BofA Securities, Inc. served as underwriters of Venture Global's
IPO, and helped to draft and disseminate the offering documents.
The Underwriter Defendants are investment banking houses that
specialize in underwriting public offerings of securities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
THE OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street, Suite 501
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
- and -
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 7th Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
VOLUME SERVICES: Pacheco Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Pacheco v. Volume Services, Inc. d/b/a Sodexo Live Case No.
1:25-cv-21737 (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit
seeking to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
During his employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff contends that
he was paid for his services at two different rates within the same
week. When Plaintiff worked in a restaurant, he was paid $15.00 an
hour. When Plaintiff worked in banquets, he was paid $18.54 an
hour. Plaintiff was paid for the same work at two different rates
in a single workweek.
The Defendant compensated Plaintiff for several overtime hours
every week. However, Defendant always deducted from Plaintiff’s
working hours, 2.5 hours daily for lunchtime. Plaintiff was forced
by his superiors to write down 2.5 hours at lunchtime, even though
Defendant knew that Plaintiff took just 30 minutes of lunchtime
break daily, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff worked at the Miami Beach Convention Center, located
at 1901 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. He held the
positions of buzzer and a cleaning employee.
Sodexo provides food services and facilities management.
Specializing in delivering hospitality services at various venues
-- including stadiums, convention centers, cultural destinations,
airport lounges, ski resorts, and major events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
WALMART INC: Scott Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN R. SCOTT is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Adrian R. Scott,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02228-LKG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged employment
discrimination and retaliation.
On June 3, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby granted on
Jan. 30, 2025.
The Court held that in sum, the Plaintiff's claims based upon his
March 2021 recruitment, hiring and job classification are untimely
and the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his employment
discrimination and retaliation claims based upon his November 2022
termination. A careful reading of the complaint also shows that the
Plaintiff fails to state plausible employment discrimination and
retaliation claims in this case, ruled the Court.
The appellate case is captioned Adrian R. Scott, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. Walmart Inc., et
al., Case No. 25-1337, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2025. [BN]
WATERFIELD DESIGNS: Evans Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATERFIELD DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03728 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://sfbags.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Waterfield Designs, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
WNC LAUNDRY: Marin Seeks to Recover Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERYN POLANCO MARIN, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. WNC LAUNDRY, LLC, DAVID KHALIL,
Individually, and MICHAEL KHALIL, Individually, Case No.
2:25-cv-02744 (D.N.J., April 15, 2025) alleges that the Defendants
failed to provide overtime wages, at the rate of one-and one-half
times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in any given week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants as a
collective and class action on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated -- non-exempt industrial laundry
laborers -- who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the FLSA and NJWPL.
The Plaintiff performed non-exempt industrial laundry duties for
Defendants from their warehouse in East Orange, New Jersey. Thus,
Defendants are within the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto,
employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, non-exempt industrial
laundry laborers, performed work for Defendants.
WNC is located in East Orange, New Jersey. The Defendant employs
individuals to perform labor services on behalf of the Defendant,
WNC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esquire
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Liable for 15% of $18MM Asbestos Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony I. Perchiacca, of asbestoscasetracker.com, reports that
plaintiff, Denise J. Guth Cook alleged asbestos exposure from
consumer talc products and automobile parts. She specifically
alleged bystander and household exposure from asbestos-tainted
clothes worn by her father and brother, who worked at automotive
repair shops. She further claimed to have developed malignant
epithelioid mesothelioma of the peritoneum because of the alleged
asbestos exposure.
Ms. Cook ultimately filed a complaint in Broward County, Florida's
17th Judicial Circuit Court, naming Hennessy Industries, Inc. and
others as defendants. Her complaint alleged negligence, strict
liability, product defect and other related claims against all
defendants. This case ultimately went to trial on negligence,
product defect and strict liability claims against brake
grinding-machine manufacturer Hennessy.
During the trial, plaintiff argued that even with safety measures
applied, grinding asbestos-containing brakes on Hennessy's AMMCO
grinder resulted in exposures exceeding federal regulations for the
time in question. In that regard, plaintiff presented expert
evidence – offered by William Longo, Ph.D., an electron
microscopist at Materials Analytical Services in Suwanee, Ga.,
which concluded that grinding asbestos-containing brakes four times
or more per day would likely expose an individual to levels of
asbestos exceeding any permissible historical or current standards.
Plaintiff was therefore always exposed to greater levels of
asbestos through Hennessy's AMMCO grinders on brakes by her father
and brother from the laundering of their asbestos-tainted
clothing.
In response, Hennessy conceded that the brakes contained asbestos.
But Hennessy denied it was negligent, that its AMMCO brake grinding
machines were defective or that it could be held strictly liable
for Ms. Cook's injuries. Hennessy specifically argued that it
tested its AMMCO grinder and its safety measures and found asbestos
exposure was within the standards set in the regulatory
requirements at the time. In addition, Hennessy grinding machines
were outfitted with dust collectors by 1973. Lastly, Hennessy
argued that Ms. Cook's mesothelioma was more likely caused by
asbestos exposure in consumer cosmetic talc products that she used
from 1960 to 2023.
On February 14, the jury returned its verdict after considering all
trial evidence. The jury found Hennessy 15 percent liable and
apportioned the remainder among other various named defendants
including Johnson & Johnson. The jury also found that Ms. Cook
suffered pain and suffering and other related damages in the amount
of $18 million.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns Verdict for American Honda in Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica N. Reich, of asbestoscasetracker.com, reports that
plaintiff Jose Estrada filed suit alleging exposure to asbestos
from a variety of products, including automobile parts during his
employment at a tire store. Mr. Estrada was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, and brought the instant suit, along with his wife,
Isabel, who claimed loss of consortium. Jose Estrada claimed that
his exposure was in part from brake assemblies manufactured by
American Honda and sold at the tire store. Plaintiff alleged strict
liability, design defect, failure to warn and negligence as to all
defendants.
The case went through three weeks of trial testimony, including
experts. At the end of the trial, the jury rendered a defense
verdict for Honda. The jury found that American Honda's products
failed "to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have
expected" and that the products were "used in a way that was
reasonably foreseeable" to American Honda but that the failure was
not "a substantial factor in" Jose Estrada's injury.
The jury found that American Honda's products contained "risks that
were known or knowable" to it and that American Honda failed to
warn of the risks. However, the jury then found that the lack of
"sufficient warnings" was not "a substantial factor in causing"
Jose Estrada's harm.
Despite finding negligence on American Honda, the jury rendered a
defense verdict.
*********
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 ***