/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250428.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 84 Headlines 5967 VENTURES: Galloso Inc. Sues Over Breach of Contract AJOB STAFFING INC: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Allman Sues Over Invasion of Privacy AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Cleveland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. AMAIN.COM INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Sewell Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts APPLIED DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Bid to Dismiss "McConnell" ASHFORD INC: Tentative Settlement Reached in Securities Suit BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Seeks to Certify 3 Classes BANK OF AMERICA: Swift Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. BITTY ADVANCE: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA BLINK CHARGING: $3.7MM Settlement in Class Suit Gets Court OK BLUE GROTTO: Acosta Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages BUXOM US BUYER: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CABA DESIGN: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kohl Says CARMAX INC: Volkswagen Settlement OK in Takata Suit Remains Pending CENTURY SNACKS: Robles Sues Over Mislabeled Nutrition Facts Panel CINTAS CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bearup Due Sept. 11, 2026 CIUNI & PANICHI: Resendiz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Burg Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Jiwani Files Suit in N.D. Illinois CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Bids to Dismiss Shareholder Suit DERMATOLOGY SPECIALIST: Dupervil Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Shareholder Suits over SEC Disclosures DONALD J. TRUMP: A.S.R. Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania EACO CORP: Awaits Approval of $7.5MM Class Settlement EDW. C. LEVY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Malone Says ELMHURST MILKED: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Class Cert Filing in Garceau Due May 19 EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. California EQUITY PRIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Says FARWEST STEEL: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures FORD MOTOR: Files 9th Circuit Appeal in Lessin Class Suit FRESHWORKS INC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Sundaram GITLAB INC: Faces Dolly Shareholder Suit in California Court GOLDEN HEAVEN: NY, Calif. Suits Remain Pending GOOGLE LLC: Faces Schwarz Suit for Invading Children's Privacy GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 23 GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in California Court HELP AT HOME: Jones Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & IMWL J. DOERER: Papazian's Bid to Certify Class Tossed JARED POLIS: Transport Workers Suit Removed to D. Colorado JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks $145MM Prelim Settlement in Xyrem Suit JBS SA: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Antitrust Suit JOHN PAUL: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal in Heagney Suit JPJ FRANKLIN: Fails to Properly Pay Cashiers, Feliciano Alleges KELLOGG BROWN: Tate Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LG ELECTRONICS: McGonigle TCPA Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey LINDE GAS: Filing of Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Suit Due May 8 LOREAL USA INC: Painter Suit Transferred to S.D. New York LOTTERY.COM INC: NY Court Dismisses "Million" MD BUILDING: Fact Discovery in Anchahua Class Suit Due Dec. 31 MD GROUP: Conditional Certification Bid Filing Due June 13 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suits over Disclosures MICROSOFT CORP: Tracks Visitors' Personal Info, Penning Alleges MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 25 MINDVALLEY INC: Class Settlement in Thornton Gets Initial Nod MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: Intends to Seek Individual Settlement of Suits MONRO INC: Howard Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access MOTHER LLC: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls MOUNTAIN KHAKIS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Says NANO-X IMAGING: $8MM Shareholder Class Settlement OK'd, Case Closed NEUEHEALTH INC: Faces Marquez Suit in New York Court NEW YORK, NY: Expert Discovery Due May 23 NIO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss NY Class Suits NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation PARKER RESTAURANT: Hughen Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Tip Retention PERION NETWORK: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in N.Y. PLANT THERAPY: Frost Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA: Pittman Balks at Inaccessible Website PUBMATIC INC: Tracks and Collects Personal Info, Semien Suit Says REAL BROKERAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to May 22 REALPAGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Says SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Tosses Rogers's Bid for Sanctions SEAHORSE & GAZELLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says SENTARA HOSPITALS: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Ward Says SHOPIFY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lazares Due Feb. 2, 2026 SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Chow Suit SKINNYCORP LLC: Faces Evans Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court SPRINKLR INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over Disclosures STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: Jenkins Seeks Initial OK of Settlement SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Murphy Says SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Kabota Alleges TILRAY BRANDS: Court OKs $21MM Aphria Securities Class Settlement TOMBOLO LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges TRANSFER TRUCKING: Alvis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages UNITED COAL: Matney Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over AEA and Immigration Law Breaches UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response UNIVERSITY CREDIT: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit VELODYNE LIDAR: Parties in Securities Suit Agree to Settle VOLVO CAR: Faces Saleh Suit Over Vehicles' Battery Defect VXN GROUP: Pretrial Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Thoma Suit WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss VillageMD Suit Remains Pending WEBHELP AMERICAS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Liparulo Alleges YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nathanson Says ********* 5967 VENTURES: Galloso Inc. Sues Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------- Galloso, Inc., a California corporation, and BIG STATEMENT MARKETING, INC., a California corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 5967 VENTURES, LLC doing business as HUMBOLDT MERCHANT SERVICES, a Delaware corporation, and BMO BANK N.A., a National Banking entity, Case No. 2:25-cv-11096-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 16, 2025), is brought asserting claims for breach of contract against Defendants arising out of Defendants' serial breaches of contract in connection with Defendants' assessment of so-called "(Manual) ETF – VIRP Closure" fees against Plaintiffs and the other Class members, without any contractual or other legal right to assess such a fee. After each of the Plaintiffs and other Class members had processed with HMS and BMO for a period of time (ranging from months to years), HMS and BMO terminated the HMS Merchant Agreement with each of the Plaintiffs and other Class members. HMS and BMO terminated the HMS Merchant Agreement with: Galloso on February 16, 2024; and BSM on November 7, 2023. After all "trailing" (i.e. post-termination) chargeback activity on the corresponding merchant account had ended and all associated risk of loss had already passed, HMS and BMO assessed a three-to-five figure "(Manual) ETF – VIRP Closure" fee against the merchant's reserves, thereby consuming the entirety of the merchant's reserves in most if not all cases. For example, HMS and BMO applied a "(Manual) ETF – VIRP Closure" fee of $12,398.02 against Galloso's reserve, and of $12,400.32 against BSM's reserve, thereby zeroing out each Plaintiff's reserves. No such fee is communicated in the Fee Disclosure, and the HMS Merchant Agreement does not provide for any such fee. By this action, and on behalf of the other Class members, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages from Defendants based on Defendants' serial breaches of contract, along with injunctive relief barring Defendants from continuing to engage in these practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs applied through an HMS sales agent for a merchant account with HMS and BMO by completing, signing and submitting a standard form HMS merchant application for participation in BMO's Program. The Defendants offer payment processing services to businesses to enable them to accept debit and credit card payments from their customers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 211 W. Fort St., Suite 705 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (248) 845-1350 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Eugene Rome, Esq. Bradley O. Cebeci, Esq. ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 282-0690 Facsimile: (310) 282-0691 Email: ERome@romellp.com BCebeci@romellp.com AJOB STAFFING INC: Valdez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AJOB Staffing Inc., et al. The case is styled as Damien Valdez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. AJOB Staffing Inc., Dedicated Delivery Professionals, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005490 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." AJOB Staffing -- https://ajobstaff.com/ -- is a staffing agency based in Santa Ana, CA, providing recruitment and placement services for job seekers and employers in various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Allman Sues Over Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------- Frederick L. Allman, on his own behalf persons, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01196 (D. Colo., April 15, 2025), is brought against Defendants for surveillance of insureds and invasion of their privacy by collecting data on their insureds' location and driving habits, surreptitiously, and without consent. The Defendants used the illicitly obtained data to build the world's largest driving behavior database, housing the driving behavior of more than 45 million Americans. Defendants created the database for two principal purposes: to support defendants' car insurance business, including relative to under-writing and coverage decisions, and profit from selling the driving behavior data to third parties, including other car insurance carriers. Through software integrated into the third-party apps, defendants directly pull valuable data directly from consumers' mobile phones. The data included a phone's geolocation data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and gyroscopic data, which monitors details such as the phone's altitude, longitude, latitude, bearing, GPS time, speed, and accuracy. These apps currently allow defendants to capture data every 15 seconds or less from 40 million active mobile connections. Once collected, the Defendants monetize the driving data, including selling access to the driving data to other insurers and using the data for insurance underwriting and coverage decisions. If a consumer requested a car insurance quote or had to renew their coverage, the Defendants access that consumer's driving behavior in its database. Insurers then secretly used that consumer's data to justify increasing their car insurance premiums, denying them coverage, or dropping them from coverage. Consumers, including class members, did not consent to, nor were aware of the Defendants' collection and sale of driving data. The Defendants did not inform consumers about their extensive data collection, nor did defendants obtain consumers' consent to engage in such data collection. The Defendants did not inform consumers as to how they would analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns an automobile insurance policy that was originally underwritten and administered by Allstate Indemnity Company. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company is a foreign corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Ballou, Esq. THE FRICKEY LAW FIRM, P.C. 940 Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 400 Lakewood, CO 80214 Phone: 303.237.7373 Fax: 303.233.7313 Email: eballou@frickey.com - and - Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, P.A. 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Phone: 954.616.8995 Fax: 954.206.0374 Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Cleveland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLEVELAND BAKERS & TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12575-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On Apr. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On June 3, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On Mar. 12, 2025, Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor entered an Order granting the motions of Defendants AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Covis Group S.R.L, and Covis Pharma GmbH to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and denying the motions of Defendants Covis Group S.r.l. and Covis Pharma GmbH to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1334, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CLEVELAND BAKERS & TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Erin C. Burns, Esq. Rachel Ann Downey, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Sq., 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 - and – Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Lisa M. Port, Esq. Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Melissa L. Yeates, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Defendants-Appellees AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al. are represented by: Lauren S. Colton, Esq. Marc Marinaccio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 100 International Dr., Ste. 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 659-2733 - and – Safa Osmani, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 125 High St., Ste. 2010 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 371-1000 AMAIN.COM INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amain.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04084 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.hobbytown.com (hereinafter "Hobbytown.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Hobbytown.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Amain.com's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Hobbytown.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ANKER TECHNOLOGY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ANKER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03176 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.eufy.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. ANKER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, operates the Eufy online retail store, as well as the Eufy interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Sewell Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angela Sewell and Milena Vitali Charewicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL, Case No. 2577-CV-00293 was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Essex County Division, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10992-IT. The Plaintiffs assert that "the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their name and date of birth, Social Security number, medical information, health insurance information patient name, patient address, and patient telephone numbers." The Plaintiffs allege that they now face "a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsey A. Gil, Esq. PEABODY & ARNOLD LLP Federal Reserve Plaza 600 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Phone: 617-951-2100 Email: lgil@peabodyarnold.com - and - Edward J. McAndrew (Pro hac vice) Nathalie A. Freeman (Pro hac vice) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 564-8386 Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com nfreeman@bakerlaw.com APPLIED DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Bid to Dismiss "McConnell" --------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Digital Corporation, Wes Cummins, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Rench, the Company's then Chief Financial Officer, have been named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit in the matter styled, McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-1805, filed in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Specifically, the complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies, including claims that the Company overstated the profitability of its Data Center Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Company's board of directors was not "independent" within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. On May 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel, and on July 22, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which asserts the same claims based on similar allegations in the original complaint. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On January 3, 2025, the defendants filed their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss. The Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in the Securities Lawsuit. If an unfavorable action were to occur, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable, the Company added. Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital infrastructures based in Texas. ASHFORD INC: Tentative Settlement Reached in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ashford Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that a tentative settlement has been reached with regards to a December 20, 2016 class action lawsuit filed against one of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws. The settlement is subject to the respective parties obtaining various approvals. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of a previous written policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest breaks and a derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May of 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class decertified. The trial court set a due date of August 7, 2023 for the briefs. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. Ashford Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an alternative asset management company with a portfolio of strategic operating businesses that provides products and services primarily to clients in the real estate and hospitality industries, including Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Braemar Hotels and Resorts, Inc. BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------ On March 14, 2025, Nathan Linden filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against The Bancorp and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions about Bancorp’s business, prospects, and operations, with focus on the Company's commercial real estate bridge loan portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in this action, the outcome remains uncertain and the Company cannot predict the potential impact, if any, on its business, operations and/or financial condition at this time. The Company disclosed in a Form 10-K/A report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it believes it has meritorious legal defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint. BANK OF AMERICA: Nguyen Seeks to Certify 3 Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 5, 2025 will move the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following classes: 1. Violation of State Statutes Class, defined as: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in a Covered State1 with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." 2. The Breach of Contract Class, defined as: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in the United States with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." 3. The California Subclass, defined as: "All persons who terminated employment with Bank of America in the state of California with a positive vacation balance for which they were not paid during the relevant limitations period." The Plaintiff satisfies the elements of Rule 23(a) because there are thousands of members of the Class; there are common claims of fact and law among the Class; the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those in the Class; and the Plaintiff, as class representative, and her counsel are adequate to represent the interests of the Class. The Plaintiff also satisfies the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), in that common issues predominate over any individualized issues and because a class action is the superior procedural mechanism for resolving this dispute. Plaintiff further moves to designate Elle Nguyen as class representative and appoint George A. Hanson, Alexander T. Ricke, and Caleb J. Wagner of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Jason S. Hartley and Jason M. Lindner of Hartley LLP as class counsel. This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of law, the declaration of George A. Hanson, all exhibits to such documents, any papers filed in reply, and any argument as may be presented at the hearing. The Plaintiff Elle Nguyen worked for the Bank from February 2017 through May 2020, when she left to work for another company. Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHr3kr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com BANK OF AMERICA: Swift Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PATRICK SWIFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. GD 25-002403, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, County of Allegheny, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00491 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts that BANA violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by enrolling consumers into its automatic payment program without disclosing that Defendant would cancel their enrollment unless the consumers also opened and maintained active Bank of America credit card, checking, or savings accounts. Bank of America, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Madrid, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 667-6000 Facsimile: (412) 667-6050 E-mail: amadrid@mcguirewoods.com BITTY ADVANCE: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE C. MARTINEZ, personally v. BITTY ADVANCE 2, LLC, MCA RECOVERIES, LLC, MCA SERVICING RTR, LLC, And CRAIG HECKER, an individual, Case No. 0:25-cv-60733 (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seeking to be paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per work week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties as a laborer on behalf of Defendants in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff was responsible for upkeep on multiple properties, vessels and vehicles, as well as providing personal services to Mr. Hecker’s family and serving as a private driver, security person and handyman. The Defendant offers small business funding solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Shook, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. SHOOK, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220-27-28 Miami FL, 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-4177 E-mail: shooklaw@bellsouth.net BLINK CHARGING: $3.7MM Settlement in Class Suit Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In August 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Blink Charging Co., Michael Farkas (Blink's former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer). In September 2020, another purported securities class action lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and seeking to recover the same alleged damages. Following consolidation of the two actions and the court appointing Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in February 2021. The Amended Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and functionality of the Blink Network and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In April 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In November 2023, the court dismissed Co-Lead Plaintiffs' claims relating to the size of Blink's charging network and denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. Following a mediation in April 2024, the parties agreed to the terms of a settlement in which the Defendants agreed to pay $3,750,000 (inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative costs) in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims. On October 21, 2024, the Court held a final settlement hearing, approved the settlement, dismissed the Bush Lawsuit with prejudice, and closed the case, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About Blink Charging Based in Miami Beach, Florida, Blink Charging Co. (OTC: CCGID) f/k/a Car Charging Group Inc. -- http://www.CarCharging.com/-- is a manufacturer, owner, operator, and provider of electric vehicle ("EV") charging equipment and networked EV charging services in the rapidly growing U.S. and international markets for EVs. Blink offers residential and commercial EV charging equipment and services, enabling EV drivers to recharge at various locations. Blink's principal line of products and services is its Blink EV charging networks and Blink EV charging equipment, also known as electric vehicle supply equipment ("EVSE"), and other EV-related services. BLUE GROTTO: Acosta Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Luis Acosta, Oscar Gonzalez, Dixon Espinoza, and Rudy Baquedano, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE GROTTO CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02101 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2025), is brought allege that, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover from Defendant: unpaid wages at the lawful wage rate; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were not properly compensated wages at the overtime wage rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. the Defendant knowingly and willfully operated business with a policy of not paying Plaintiffs wages for hours worked in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Defendant knowingly and willfully operated business with a policy of not paying Plaintiffs wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek at the overtime wage rate in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as carpenters. BLUE GROTTO CONSTRUCTION INC., is a business corporation, existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan Tighe, Esq. 52 Duane St., Fl. 7 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (914) 487-3592 Email: bt@spasojevichlaw.com BUXOM US BUYER: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BUXOM US BUYER LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03139 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://buxomcosmetics.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. BUXOM US BUYER LLC, operates the Buxom Cosmetics online retail store, as well as the Buxom Cosmetics interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CABA DESIGN: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CABA DESIGN CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-03140 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://anabei.com/ including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. CABA DESIGN CORP., operates the Anabei online retail store, as well as the Anabei interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kohl Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL KOHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA (BSCA), Case No. 25CV119100 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 16, 2025) addresses the Defendant's alleged offensive, 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 in clear violation of law. The Defendant is one of the largest health care insurers in California and partners with physicians and practice groups to provide medical coverage including Health Management Organizations, Preferred Provider Organizations, dental care and vision care, and operates, controls, and manages over 380 hospitals statewide, working with over 75,000 physicians. The Defendant owns and controls blueshield.ca and related webpage, and it also owns and controls a mobile application (collectively the Web Properties). 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 (collectively, Tracking Tools). The Tracking Technologies allow unauthorized third parties to receive and view patients' Private Information and intercept their private communications, mine it for purposes unrelated to the provision of healthcare, and then directly monetize it to deliver targeted advertisements to specific individuals, says the suit. The Defendant is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, founded in 1939 by the California Medical Association.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 9210 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Paul M. Demarco, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com CARMAX INC: Volkswagen Settlement OK in Takata Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. is a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit (In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida)) against Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Ford and Volkswagen related to the economic loss associated with defective Takata airbags installed as original equipment in certain model vehicles from model years 2000-2019. In April 2020, CarMax received $40.3 million in net recoveries from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement funds. In January 2022, CarMax received $3.8 million in net recoveries from the Ford settlement funds. On April 21, 2023, CarMax received $59.3 million in net recoveries from residual undisbursed funds in the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlements. On August 9, 2023, CarMax received $7.9 million in additional residual funds in the BMW, Mazda, and Nissan settlements. CarMax remains a class member for residual funds in the Ford settlement. The Volkswagen settlement has not yet been resolved, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of gain that could result from CarMax's participation in the Ford residual or Volkswagen matters. Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, CarMax, Inc. retails automobiles. CENTURY SNACKS: Robles Sues Over Mislabeled Nutrition Facts Panel ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALORIE ROBLES, REBECCA MCNEALLY, AND TIANA GAMINO, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Century Snacks, LLC and Snak Club, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03166 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2025) seeks redress under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act for the Defendants' unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of Snak Club consumer food products, including trail mixes, nuts, and snack mixes, which make protein claims on the front of the product packages but fail to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel. According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently claims on the front of its food product packages that the product provides a specified amount of protein, such as "7g PROTEIN" on Snak Club Tajin Chili & Lime Peanuts. The Plaintiffs and other consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will actually provide the amount of protein claimed on the front of the product package in a form the body can use. The Defendant failed to provide in the NFP a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving calculated according to the PDCAAS methodology and expressed as a %DV. Accordingly, the protein claims on the front of the Product packages, such as "7g PROTEIN," are unlawful in violation of parallel state and federal laws because Defendant did not comply with the regulatory requirements for making a protein claim, says the suit. Century Snacks, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells food products, including trail mixes, nuts and snack mixes under the brand name Snak Club.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com CINTAS CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bearup Due Sept. 11, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP JR., et al., v. CINTAS CORP NO. 2, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered a scheduling order as follows: a. Fact Discovery Deadline: March 31, 2026 b. Deadlines for Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Submission of Reports: i. Plaintiffs' Expert Report(s): April 30, 2026 ii. Defendant's Expert Report(s): June 15, 2026 iii. Disclosure and Report July 10, 2026 of Rebuttal Experts: c. Expert Discovery Deadline: Aug. 21, 2026 d. Deadline for Motion for Class Sept. 11, 2026 Certification: e. Deadline for Opposition to Oct. 23, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: f. Deadline for Reply in Support Nov. 13,2026 of Motion for Class Certification: Cintas provides corporate identity uniforms. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HQZHht at no extra charge.[CC] CIUNI & PANICHI: Resendiz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDDIE RESENDIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00687 (N.D. Ohio, April 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, current and former customers, including Plaintiff, are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private information for themselves and their current and former employees, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to provide accounting services to Defendant's clients. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Ciuni & Panichi, Inc. is a company that provides accounting services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Burg Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- RANDI WELCH BURG, on behalf of her minor child, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50159 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons impacted by a data breach that Chicago Public Schools publicly announced on March 7, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The information compromised as a result of the data breach involving Chicago Public Schools include name, date of birth, gender, and Chicago Public Schools student ID number. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's minor child's and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Cleo Communications, Inc. is a software platform that helps businesses manage their supply chain integration and provides tools to businesses for automating, integrating, and monitoring business-to-business transactions, among other services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th St NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Jiwani Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleo Communications, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zain Jiwani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cleo Communications, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, DXC Technology Services LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-50176 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo -- https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company founded in 1976.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com CYTODYN INC: Continues to Defend Bids to Dismiss Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed a putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Cytodyn Inc. and certain former officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19. On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021. On August 9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the March 17, 2021 lawsuit. On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and May 17, 2021. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the Company's CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its human immunodeficiency virus Biologic License Application. The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the Company's common stock purportedly while in possession of material nonpublic information. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action and unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 24, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased the Company's common stock between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022, makes similar allegations, names the same defendants, asserts the same claims as the prior complaint, adds a claim for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder, and seeks the same relief as the prior complaint. All defendants have filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in whole or in part. The Company and the individual defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend the matter. Since this case is in an early stage where the number of plaintiffs is not known, and the claims do not specify an amount of damages, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss the Company may incur, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cytodyn Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company based in Washington. DERMATOLOGY SPECIALIST: Dupervil Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dermatology Specialists, LLC. The case is styled as Xavier Dupervil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dermatology Specialists LLC doing business as: The Dermatology Specialists, Case No. 2:25-cv-02707 (D.N.J., April 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Dermatology Specialists LLC doing business as The Dermatology Specialists -- https://www.thedermspecs.com/ -- is a full-service dermatology practice with 50+ locations across Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: (732) 588-8688 Email: ross@kazlg.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Shareholder Suits over SEC Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar General Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on November 27, 2023, a putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that during the putative class periods noted below, the company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the company's financial results and prospects, namely "Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al.," (Case No. 3:23-cv-01250). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on January 19, 2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On or before June 17, 2024, lead plaintiff must file a consolidated amended complaint. On October 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May 28, 2020 to August 28, 2024. On November 15, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, and briefing on defendants' motion has been completed. Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States. DONALD J. TRUMP: A.S.R. Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. The case is styled as A.S.R., on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly-situated, Petitioner v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT; BRIAN MCSHANE, in his official capacity as acting Philadelphia Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; LEONARD ODDO, in his official capacity as the Facility Administrator of the Moshannon Valley Processing Center; Respondents, Case No. 3:25-cv-00113-SLH (W.D. Pa., April 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vanessa Stine, Esq. ACLUF of Pennsylvania P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 592-1513 Email: vstine@aclupa.org EACO CORP: Awaits Approval of $7.5MM Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In January 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court against EACO Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary, Bisco Industries, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations and related claims. The class action covers a class of former and current employees of Bisco who were employed between January 13, 2019 and the present time. In March 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. Both parties requested to stay the litigation pending mediation, which mediation commenced in April 2024. As a result of the mediation, the parties agreed in principle to settle this matter for approximately $7,500,000. The court is scheduled to approved the settlement agreement, which is currently pending class notification and acceptance, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company accrued $7,600,000 in fiscal 2024 in anticipation of this settlement and the related legal fees. EACO Corporation is a holding company based in California. EDW. C. LEVY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Malone Says -------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EDW. C. LEVY CO., Case No. 2:25-cv-11107-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 16, 2025) alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On November 1, 2023, Edw. C. Levy discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (Data Breach). Accordingly, the Data Breach has impacted several thousands of current and former employees. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to name and Social Security number. On Jan. 16, 2025, over two months later, Edw. C. Levy finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted—refusing to tell its employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when it was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information.    The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. Accordingly, the Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse.   In failing to adequately protect its employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees, asserts the suit. 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 PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust. The Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, the suit adds. The Plaintiff is a former employee and Data Breach victim. EDW. C. LEVY CO. is a family-owned company providing steel mill services, concrete, asphalt, mining & logistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Miller, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 3500 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: pmiller@finkbressack.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli , Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ELMHURST MILKED: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Elmhurst Milked Direct, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03711 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://elmhurst1925.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Elmhurst Milked Direct's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Elmhurst Milked Direct, LLC operates the website that offers various types of milk made from hazelnuts, cashews, oats, almonds, rice, and blends.[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 EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Class Cert Filing in Garceau Due May 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN A. GARCEAU, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered 2nd amended case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for Motion for Class Certification: May 19, 2025 Deadline for Response to Motion for Class June 20, 2025 Certification: Deadline for Reply to Response to Motion for June 27, 2025 Class Certification: Disclosure of Expert Reports Plaintiff: Sept. 2, 2025 Defendant: Oct. 6, 2025 Discovery Deadline: Nov. 3, 2025 Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final March 2, 2026 Pretrial Statement: All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine Mar. 23, 2026 and Objections to Deposition Designations and Counter-Designations on approved form: Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuusGT at no extra charge.[CC] EMPLOYBRIDGE LLC: Jackson Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leonard Jackson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC, EMPLOYBRIDGE MIDWEST 3, INC. PRODRIVERS STAFFING, INC, PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS OF GEORGIA, INC., and DOES I to 20, inclusive, Case No. 24CV104191 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03340. The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to assert four causes of action styled as follows: California Labor Code violation; PAGA; Business & Professions Code; and Class Action Certification. Within the First Cause of Action arising under the California Labor Code, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia: failure to pay Plaintiff at the prescribed enhanced wage rates for all overtime worked; knowing and intentional failure to accompany each weekly paycheck given Plaintiff with a complete accurate itemized statement of his earnings in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and willful failure to pay Plaintiff all wages owed to him at the time of his resignation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. David Szwarcsztejn, Esq. Charles J. Urena, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phone: 310.315.8200 Facsimile: 310.315.8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com trusche@mcguirewoods.com dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com curena@mcguirewoods.com EQUITY PRIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- AIDA PEREZ et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQUITY PRIME MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10841 (D. Mass., April 7, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and Massachusetts Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has violated the state and federal laws, by, inter alia, failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class members for all hours worked and, with respect to such hours, failing to pay the legally mandated overtime premium for such work and/or minimum wage. The Defendant has also willfully failed to supply the Plaintiff Velasquez and the members of the New York Class with wage notices at the time of their hire and failed to provide accurate wage statements as required by the NYLL. Plaintiff Perez worked for Equity Prime as a Loan Closer from approximately September 2023 through approximately March 2024 in Mt. Olive, New Jersey. Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC is a national mortgage lender based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com - and - Paolo Meireles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com FARWEST STEEL: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farwest Steel Corporation. The case is styled as Carlos Julian Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Farwest Steel Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005422 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Farwest -- https://www.farweststeel.com/ -- has been the premium metal solutions choice within the greater Western United States since 1956.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Lyun Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on February 28, 2025, Star Equity Fund, LP filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, docketed as case no. 1:25-cv-00677-SAG, against Firsthand Capital Management, Inc., Scalar, LLC, current and former members of the board of directors of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. and an officer of the fund as defendants. The complaint also names the fund as a nominal defendant. It alleges putative class action claims against the defendants for violations of federal securities laws for alleged false or misleading statements relating to the valuation of its assets, and it also purports to allege derivative claims against defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and breach of contract related to management of the fund and its assets. Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. is an externally managed, closed-end, non-diversified management investment company. FORD MOTOR: Files 9th Circuit Appeal in Lessin Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- FORD MOTOR COMPANY has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled William Lessin, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the consumer protection statutes of California, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraud. On Nov. 7, 2024, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Nov. 21, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Nov. 7 Order, which Judge Battaglia granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 14, 2025. On Mar. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to substitute class representative. The appellate case is captioned Lessin, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 25-2211, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 11, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees WILLIAM LESSIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Todd Alan Walburg, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 - and – David Christopher Wright, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and – Andrew Van Ligten, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 - and – Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Defendant-Appellant FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by: Randall W. Edwards, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 2 Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and – Jonathan Hacker, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 - and – Amy J. Laurendeau, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 FRESHWORKS INC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Sundaram ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAN R. SUNDARAM, et al., v. FRESHWORKS INC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06750-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Defendants have established that no recoverable losses (that is, no losses below the $36 per share threshold) were caused by their alleged omissions. And Plaintiffs have not identified any genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged omissions actually caused any recoverable loss. Summary judgment is therefore proper. Lead Plaintiff Mohan Sundaram has sued Freshworks Inc. and its executives, directors, and IPO underwriters for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that they have shown that any recoverable losses in Freshworks' stock price were not caused by Defendants' alleged omissions leading up to Freshworks' initial public offering. The Court agrees the uncontested evidence in the record establishes that no omission by Defendants caused Freshworks' stock price to drop below the IPO price, and the law is clear that Sundaram cannot recover for drops above the IPO price. Finding this matter suitable for resolution without argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court vacates the hearing scheduled for April 11, 2025 and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Sundaram filed the lawsuit in November 2022, asserting (among other causes of action that have since been dismissed) that Defendants violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K. Freshworks is a cloud-based software-as-a-service company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PPZ0SG at no extra charge.[CC] GITLAB INC: Faces Dolly Shareholder Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Gitlab Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on September 4, 2024, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Dolly v. GitLab et al.," Case No. 5:24-cv-06244-EKL, naming GitLab and certain of its officers. The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our common stock between June 5, 2023 and June 3, 2024. He alleged that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding its use of AI features and ability to monetize AI capabilities that artificially inflated its stock price. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs. He amended his complaint on February 5, 2025 and March 7, 2025, and the company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint this April. GitLab operates a "DevSecOps" platform, accelerating customers' software development by removing the need for point tools and eliminating manual work, Its DevSecOps platform is built on an open-core business model that enable any customer and contributor to add functionality to the platform. GOLDEN HEAVEN: NY, Calif. Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------- Three putative class action lawsuits were filed on December 8, 2023, December 19, 2023 and January 17, 2024 by certain shareholders against Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd., its former Chief Executive Officer, Qiong Jin, its then Chief Financial Officer, Jinguang Gong and its independent directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Case No. 161978/2023) and United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:23-cv-10619-HDV-SK and Case No. 2:24-cv-00423-SVW-AJR), the Company disclosed in Amendment No. 1 to a Form 20-F/A report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Two complaints filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company during the class period assert claims that plaintiffs were economically damaged, and generally allege that the referenced defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding, among other matters, the Company's business operations, management, financial condition and prospects. One complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company during the class period asserts claims that the plaintiffs were economically damaged, and generally alleges that the defendants violated sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements regarding, among other matters, the Company's business operations, management, financial condition and prospects. The company operates amusement parks in China through Nanping Golden Heaven Amusement Park Management Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries. GOOGLE LLC: Faces Schwarz Suit for Invading Children's Privacy -------------------------------------------------------------- JOEL SCHWARZ, on behalf of his minor child B.S., EMILY DUNBAR, on behalf of her minor child H.D., and MICHAEL GRIDLEY and ELIZABETH GRIDLEY, on behalf of their minor children A.G. and Z.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03125 (N.D. Calif., April 7, 2025) is an action against Defendant Google LLC for acts in violation of various state and federal laws protecting children's privacy rights including the Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Federal Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Google has built a multitrillion-dollar empire by monetizing vast troves of personal information from individuals -- including millions of school-aged children -- without effective consent. Google markets products to primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools around the world. Its products include the Chromebook, Chrome OS, the Chrome browser, and a suite of cloud-based web applications. Through its products, Google surreptitiously surveils students and continually extracts their personal information. Google and its customers convert that information into intimately detailed profiles on school-aged children, which they use to market products and services to them, to manipulate how they think and act, to shape their information environment, and to make significant decisions affecting their lives and their futures -- all without students or their parents ever knowing or having an opportunity to avoid or limit the unauthorized collection and distribution of their children's personal and private information, says the suit. Google's massive data-harvesting apparatus exposes children to serious and irreversible risks to their privacy, property, and autonomy, and harms them in ways that are both concealed and profound. Google must be held to account for operating as though the fundamental rights of children and their parents do not exist, the suit alleges. Google LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in Internet related services and products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julie U. Liddell, Esq. W. Andrew Liddell, Esq EDTECH LAW CENTER PLLC P.O. Box 300488 Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (737) 351-5855 E-mail: julie.liddell@edtech.law andrew.liddell@edtech.law - and - 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 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com sgowda@gustafsongluek.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: RPeterson@4-justice.com - and - David George, Esq. Brittany Sackrin, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Telephone: (561) 232-6002 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com MLiskow@4-Justice.com GOOGLE LLC: Rabin Plaintiffs Seek to File Documents Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another party's material should be sealed pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(c) and (f), and the Court's Order granting Google's Administrative Motion for Omnibus Sealing Procedures. The material to be filed under seal are portions of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification and exhibits attached thereto. The reasons for sealing will be discussed in the parties’ forthcoming Joint Omnibus Sealing Motion. Google specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcwERI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Franklin@WebbLLC.com Adam@WebbLLC.com GRANITE COUNTY, MT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY LARSON AND RUSSELL MORRISON, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. GRANITE COUNTY, Case No. 9:23-cv-00126-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the class certification motion deadline. The following schedule will govern all further pretrial proceedings: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: May 23, 2025 Defendant’s Response Regarding June 23, 2025 Class Certification: Plaintiffs' Reply Regarding Class Certification: July 7, 2025 Discovery Deadline: Dec. 19, 2025 Motions in Limine Deadline: March 2, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference: May 7, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. Jury Trial: May 11, 2026 Granite County is a rural natural-resource supported county in central Western Montana. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ym6eS8 at no extra charge.[CC] GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Greenlane Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on February 11, 2025, Earth's Healing, Inc. brought a purchaser antitrust class action against four U.S. Distributors of "Ccell" vape products, including the company (Case No. 25-Cv-1428 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint accuses distributors of engaging in a horizontal agreement that artificially inflated the price of vape hardware, restricted competition, and harmed both cannabis businesses and consumers. The allegations include violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits agreements that restrain trade. Greenlane is a global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories, vape devices, and lifestyle products. HELP AT HOME: Jones Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & IMWL ---------------------------------------------------------- Diondra S. Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Help at Home, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04186 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all overtime wages and job-related expenses. The Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members are current and former employees of Help at Home. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated current and former employees who were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. The Collective Members are all current and former employees who were employed by Help at Home and were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiff worked as a "Home Care Aid" for Help at Home from June 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023. Help at Home provides in-home medical support for its clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 ½ N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com J. DOERER: Papazian's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN, v. J. DOERER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order adopting in full the findings and recommendations and denying the Plaintiff's motion to create a class action: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 10, 2025 are adopted in full. 2. The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class is denied. James Michael Papazia seeks to hold the United States Government and several employees of the Bureau of Prisons—including, but not limited to, the Warden of USP Atwater, associate wardens, medical staff, mail room staff—liable for violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at USP Atwater. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQCFce at no extra charge.[CC] JARED POLIS: Transport Workers Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Transport Workers Union Of America, AFL-CIO, Local 556, and Angela Farnan, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. JARED POLIS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS and STATISTICS; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 24CV104191 was removed from the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01195. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and class members, asserts five claims for relief: violation of the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act ("CAPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 Email: mdawson@fisherphillips.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Inks $145MM Prelim Settlement in Xyrem Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- As Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc has previously disclosed, a number of complaints, including, from June 2020 to September 2020, several complaints styled as class actions and, from March 2021 to May 2022, several additional complaints, were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the Company's actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with generic drug manufacturers who had filed abbreviated new drug applications ("ANDAs" and such filers, "ANDA filers"), violate U.S. state and federal antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws. This group of cases was consolidated for multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court") in December 2020. The Company disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on April 7, 2025, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a preliminary class settlement agreement (the "preliminary class settlement agreement") with the class of indirect Xyrem purchasers to settle all claims of participating class members against the Company with respect to the Company's actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with the ANDA filers. Pursuant to the preliminary class settlement agreement, which was entered into with counsel representing the class representatives, the Company has agreed to pay a total of $145 million in a lump sum. The Company plans to use cash on hand to fund the preliminary class settlement agreement's obligations. The Company expects to record a pre-tax charge of approximately $145 million associated with this preliminary class settlement agreement in the first quarter of 2025. The preliminary class settlement agreement remains subject to court approval. The preliminary class settlement agreement, in which the Company denies all alleged wrongdoing, also includes specified releases by class members of the Company and its past, present and future affiliates, directors, officers, employees and other related parties, for all conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs who affirmatively opt out of the class will not be bound by the release and will not receive any settlement proceeds. Additionally, the preliminary class settlement agreement grants the Company the right to rescind the settlement agreement in the event an agreed upon percentage based on Xyrem purchases or payments made by potential class members that opt out. This settlement, if finalized on the agreed-upon terms, will resolve the majority of claims at issue in the MDL. If the preliminary class settlement agreement is not approved by the Court, or the Company terminates the preliminary class settlement agreement, the Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously. The Company also remains confident in its defenses to the other claims brought by plaintiffs described above, including that the patent settlement agreements at issue were and are pro-competitive, and intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Nonetheless, in addition to the preliminary class settlement agreement, the Company may enter into one or more settlement agreements with additional remaining plaintiffs and any additional settlement payment obligations to be paid by the Company thereunder and related additional charges that it would record in connection therewith may be significant. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a global biopharmaceutical company based in Ireland. JBS SA: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------- JBS S.A. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on January 7, 2025, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted final approval of settlement and dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint styled as "In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation," Case No. CIV-17-033. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC), where JBS S.A. beneficially owns approximately 83% of its outstanding common stock, and other chicken producers in the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. The complaint was consolidated with several subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaints and styled as "In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation," Case No. CIV-17-033. On June 24, 2024, a settlement was reached in the amount of US$100.0 million. The settlement was paid on October 28, 2024. On January 7, 2025, the Oklahoma Court granted final approval of PPC's settlement and dismissed the case. JBS S.A. is a multinational Brazilian corporation in Sao Paulo, Brazil operating a meat processing business. JOHN PAUL: Seeks to File Documents Under Seal in Heagney Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, RICA GUERRERO, KERRIE GONNELLA, JOHN ROHLOFF, and JEWEL RULE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file documents under seal: JPMS seeks to keep under seal only narrow portions of documents, each of which meet the "compelling reasons" standard. The sealed portions contain highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information reflecting or derived from either JPMS's annual sales figures or strategic marketing information. Disclosure of this information could cause significant competitive harm to JPMS Exhibit G contains JPMS's Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Disclosure, attaching the Report of Dominique M. Hanssens, Ph.D. and Exhibit M contains JPMS's Rebuttal Class Certification Expert Disclosure, attaching the Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D. As explained herein and in the accompanying Declaration of Jason Yates, these expert reports, filed provisionally with redactions by JPMS, contain JPMS's highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information, the public disclosure of which could cause significant competitive harm to JPMS. John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h7j4pf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Megan O'Neill, Esq. Andrea Maddox, Esq. William A. Delgado, Esq. Katherine Burghardt Kramer, Esq. Destiny R. Lopez, Esq. DTO LAW 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (415) 630-4100 Facsimile: (415) 630-4105 E-mail: moneill@dtolaw.com amaddox@dtolaw.com wdelgado@dtolaw.com kkramer@dtolaw.com drlopez@dtolaw.com - and - Martin D. Singer, Esq. LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-3501 Facsimile: (310) 556-3615 E-mail: mdsinger@lavelysinger.com JPJ FRANKLIN: Fails to Properly Pay Cashiers, Feliciano Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- INEZLEE FELICIANO and AMANDA CARDONA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPJ FRANKLIN LLC, PENN BURGERS, LLC, and SUNRISE BURGERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01929 (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Fair Workweek Law including failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide advance notice of work schedules, failure to provide schedule change premiums, and failure to offer newly available shifts to existing employees. Plaintiffs Feliciano and Cardona worked for the Defendants as cashiers from approximately February 2023 through July 2023 and from approximately January 2021 through April 2021, respectively. JPJ Franklin LLC is a fast-food restaurant company, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. Penn Burgers, LLC is a fast-food restaurant company, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. Sunrise Burgers, LLC is a fast-food restaurant company, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H. Street NE, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com KELLOGG BROWN: Tate Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TATE, individually, and on behalf of persons similarly situated; Plaintiff v. KELLOGG, BROWN, AND ROOT LLC; AND TECHNICAL STAFFING RESOURCES, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00669 (E.D. La., April 7, 2025) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all similarly situated former and current employees of the Defendants, for Defendants alleged failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the engagement of the Defendants in unlawful practices of denying earned overtime to its employees by failing to pay the full overtime rate for hours worked past 40 in a workweek. Plaintiff Tate is a current employee of KBR whose job title is "Permit Coordinator." He has worked for KBR at the Venture Global site since December 2024. Kellogg, Brown, and Root LLC operates as a construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 Facsimile: (504) 513-3084 E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com - and - Robert B. Landry III, Esq. ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC 5420 Corporate Blvd., Suite 303 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Telephone: (225) 349-7460 Facsimile: (225) 349-7466 E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com LG ELECTRONICS: McGonigle TCPA Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew James McGonigle, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-00051 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02700 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LG Electronics Inc. -- https://www.lg.com/us/ -- is a South Korean multinational major appliance and consumer electronics corporation headquartered in Yeouido-dong, Seoul, South Korea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Robinson, Esq. 319 N. Piedmont St., #1 Arlington VA. 22203 Phone: 703-789-4800 Email: wprlegal@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LINDE GAS: Filing of Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Suit Due May 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORICK MAHEIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08976-DSF-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer entered an order granting joint stipulation to vacate filing deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class certification, currently scheduled for April 08, 2025 is vacated; and 2. The Parties are required to file a joint stipulation to dismiss class action or joint status report no later than May 8, 2025. Linde Gas is a trusted provider of industrial gases, applications, products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzdPDu at no extra charge.[CC] LOREAL USA INC: Painter Suit Transferred to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ellen Painter, Robert Hightower, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00512 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03137-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Jason Richards, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: jrichards@awkolaw.com - and - Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Melody Dickson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Fax: (816) 531-2372 Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com - and - Robert M. Hatch, Esq. LOVELL, WHITE, DURRANT One IBM Plaza 330 N. Wabash Avenue Chicago, Il 60611 Phone: (312) 832-4400 The Defendants are represented by: Breanna Spackler, Esq. 7718 W. 144th Ter., Overland Park, KS 66223 Phone: (636) 699-5766 - and - Cynthia A Castillo, Esq. Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 954-4480 Fax: (415) 954-4480 Email: ccastillo@fbm.com tmayhew@fbm.com - and - Jason C. Smith, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP-SPFLDMO 2144 E. Republic Road, Ste. B300 Springfield, MO 65804 Phone: (417) 888-1013 Fax: (417) 881-8035 - and - C. Michael Heihre, Esq. Michi Momose, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE LLP 1000 Bishop Street 12th Flr Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 521-9200 LOTTERY.COM INC: NY Court Dismisses "Million" --------------------------------------------- On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed a Class Action Complaint against Lottery.com Inc. and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4 et seq. On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss. The Class Action Plaintiffs amended their complaint within the twenty-one day period provided by the judge, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K/A report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Lottery.com Inc. (NASDAQ: LTRY) is a provider of domestic and international lottery products and services that enable consumers and businesses to purchase purportedly legally sanctioned lottery tickets in the United States and abroad online through its proprietary business-to-consumer platform. MD BUILDING: Fact Discovery in Anchahua Class Suit Due Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edison Anchahua and Franklin Anchahua, et al., v. MD Building Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00035-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order: 1. Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than May 30, 2025. 2. Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be completed no later than Apr. 24, 2025. 3. All fact discovery is to be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2025. 4. Depositions shall be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. 5. A post-discovery status conference shall be held on Jan. 6, 2026. MD Building Services offers comprehensive office cleaning and related maintenance. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0CtCKh at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: C.K. Lee Lee, Esq. LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY - and - Gregory Begg, Esq. Roksolana Murkis PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C. 70 Grand Avenue River Edge, NJ 07661 MD GROUP: Conditional Certification Bid Filing Due June 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES BUTCHER, v. THE MD GROUP II LLC d/b/a HOMETOWN PHARMACY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00045-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings: May 28, 2025 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for June 13, 2025 conditional certification: 3. Motions & Briefs to Oct. 8, 2025 Certify/Decertify Classes: 4. Deadline for filing dispositive April 21, 2026 motions: 5. Discovery Cutoff: April 10, 2026 6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Sept. 11, 2026 all motions in limine: Objections: Oct. 2, 2026 7. First Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 21, 2026 Second Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 28, 2026 8. Trial: Nov. 2, 2026 HomeTown is a privately owned chain of community pharmacies. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YI6kdv at no extra charge.[CC] MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suits over Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 27, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on January 9, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against Micron and certain individual officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges defendants made materially false or misleading statements during a putative class period from September 18, 2024 to December 18, 2024, regarding the demand for Micron's products, particularly NAND and consumer-oriented products. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Micron Technology is into memory and storage solutions whose portfolio includes DRAM, NAND, and NOR memory and storage products through its Micron(R) and Crucial(R) brands. MICROSOFT CORP: Tracks Visitors' Personal Info, Penning Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- STACY PENNING, SUNGGIL HONG, LAURA BONETTI, JONATHAN FINESTONE, TANISHA DANTIGNAC, and ROBERT MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00570 (W.D. Wash., Apr. 1, 2025) alleges that Microsoft, through its advertising and analytics platform, Xandr, and its Adnxs Pixel, tracks in real time and records indefinitely the personal information and specific web activity of hundreds of millions of Americans. The Defendant unlawfully collected information is worth billions of dollars to Defendant because it makes up the content of Microsoft's extensive line of data analysis products and creates individual sales of advertisements in the real-time-bidding ecosystem present on thousands of major websites, the suit claims. The Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce their constitutional rights to privacy and to seek damages under California law for the harm caused by the collection and sale of their confidential data and personal information. Mr. Penning was in California when he accessed the Buzzfeed website and had his activity on that website and subsequent activity on other websites tracked by the Defendant. Ms. Dantignac was in California when she accessed the Expedia website and had her activity on that website and subsequent activity on other websites tracked by the Defendant. Microsoft Corporation is an American multinational technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wright A. Noel, Esq. CARSON NOEL PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7786 E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INGRID ALATORRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge william Duffin entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures to the opposing party in accordance Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) no later than April 25, 2025. 2. The parties may join other parties and amend the pleadings without leave of court no later than July 25, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) collective action shall be filed on or before July 25, 2025. 4. The deadline for the plaintiff to file a Rule 23 motion for class certification is April 3, 2026. 5. The Defendants' motion for decertification of the 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) certified collective action shall be filed on or before April 3, 2026. 6. The plaintiff shall disclose expert witnesses in accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than June 5, 2026. 7. The defendant shall disclose expert witnesses in accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than July 3, 2026. 8. All discovery is to be completed by Aug. 7, 2026. 9. All motions for summary judgment together with the moving Party's principal materials in support of the motion are to be filed in accordance with Civil L.R. 56 no later than Sept. 18, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hw2WN0 at no extra charge.[CC] MINDVALLEY INC: Class Settlement in Thornton Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY THORNTON, et al., v. MINDVALLEY, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00593-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Noel Wise entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court preliminarily certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the following Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who: (1) currently have or previously had a Mindvalley account at any point in time prior to the Effective Date; and (2) requested or viewed videos on either of the Mindvalley Websites at any point in time prior to the Effective Date." 2. The Court finds and determines, pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for purposes of the Settlement only, that Plaintiffs Patricia Gooiker and William Finley will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class in enforcing their rights in the Action and appoints them as Representative Plaintiffs. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Eric S. Dwoskin of Dwoskin Wasdin LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 4. Final Approval Briefing and Hearing: a. All motions, briefs and supporting documents in support of a request for final approval of the Settlement and Settlement Benefits, and application for attorneys' fees, expenses and Service Awards, must be filed by Tuesday, May 27, 2025. b. Any oppositions or objections (if any) must be filed by Tuesday, June 10, 2025. c. Any replies to an opposition (or responses to an objection) must be filed by Tuesday, June 17, 2025. d. A Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, August 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Mindvalley is an educational technology company co-founded by Vishen Lakhiani and Michael Reining. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qEUd6A at no extra charge.[CC] MOBIVITY HOLDINGS: Intends to Seek Individual Settlement of Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- As of April 6, 2025, Mobivity Holdings Corp. has two pending legal proceeding related to alleged violations of the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) Violation. The first proceeding is a putative class action complaint alleging that Defendant initiated telephone solicitations through text messages to Plaintiff and members of a putative class in violation of the TCPA. The defense of the matter was tendered to the Company by its client, and the firm took over the defense of the matter. The Company has it has not yet responded to the complaint and no discovery has been conducted so it is unable to determine at this time whether it may result in a "material" exposure as defined. The Company said it intends to seek an individual settlement of this matter and if one cannot be reached it intends to vigorously defend the matter for its client, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The second proceeding is a putative class action complaint alleging that Defendant initiated telephone solicitations through text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Sec. 227 et al. The defense of the matter was tendered to the Company by its client, and the Company is managing the defense of the matter. The Company has yet responded to the complaint and no discovery has been conducted so it is unable to determine at this time whether it may result in a "material" exposure as defined. The Company said it intends to seek an individual settlement of this matter and if one cannot be reached it intends to vigorously defend the matter for its client. About Mobivity Holdings Mobivity Holdings Corp. develops and operates proprietary platforms that enable brands and enterprises to run data-driven marketing campaigns at both national and local levels. The Company's flagship product, Recurrency, is a self-service SaaS platform that empowers businesses to optimize promotions, media, and marketing spend. On average, Recurrency delivers a 13% increase in guest spend and a 26% improvement in visit frequencyâ€”resulting in a 10X Return on Marketing Spend. In other words, for every dollar invested, retailers using Recurrency generate approximately ten dollars in incremental revenue. MONRO INC: Howard Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-06188 (W.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in November 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. Monro, Inc. is an automotive service and tire parts supplier, with its principal place of business in Rochester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com MOTHER LLC: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls ----------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOTHER, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-005441 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 15, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Mother ("Mother Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Mother, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com MOUNTAIN KHAKIS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mountain Khakis, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03723 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.mountainkhakis.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Mountain Khakis' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mountain Khakis, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view pants, shorts, shirts, jackets, vests, tees, bags, hats, belts and other items.[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 NANO-X IMAGING: $8MM Shareholder Class Settlement OK'd, Case Closed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2020, two securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. and certain then-current officers and a director, which were subsequently consolidated and captioned as White v. Nano-X Imaging Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04355, alleging violations of securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, and seeking unspecified damages. In addition, on October 5, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned McLaughlin v. Nano-X Imaging Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05517. The amended complaint in that action, filed on April 12, 2022, alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures concerning the cost of the Nanox.ARC system as well as the comparison of the Nanox.ARC to CT scanners, among other allegations. The Lead Plaintiff in the McLaughlin Action seek to represent a class of investors who purchased the Company's publicly-traded securities between August 21, 2020 and November 17, 2021. The Company entered into a term sheet on April 28, 2023, to settle all shareholder class action litigation related to the McLaughlin Action and the consolidated White Action. On June 2, 2023, the Company entered into a formal settlement agreement to settle the McLaughlin Action and the consolidated White Action for $8 million. On October 31, 2023, Magistrate Judge Kuo preliminarily approved the settlement. Due to the settlement agreement, during December 2023 the Company deposited $5 million and the D&O insurance carrier deposited $3 million in a trust account in connection with the settlement agreement. On February 15, 2024, the court held a final approval hearing, during which she requested that the parties submit updated settlement claims information by letter on or before February 29, 2024 for incorporation into a final report and recommendation. The parties submitted the letter on February 29, 2024, and on April 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kuo issued a report and recommendation recommending that Judge Kovner grant the motion for final approval of the settlement. On May 7, 2024, Judge Kovner entered an order adopting Magistrate Judge Kuo's report and recommendation and finally approving the settlement. On May 10, 2024, the judgment was entered, and the case was dismissed with prejudice, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Due to the settlement agreement, during December, 2023 the Company deposited $5 million and the D&O insurance carrier deposited $3 million in a trust account in connection with the settlement agreement. NEUEHEALTH INC: Faces Marquez Suit in New York Court ---------------------------------------------------- Neuehealth, Inc. (formerly known as Bright Health Group, Inc.) disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on January 6, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Bright Health Group, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the Eastern District of New York captioned "Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc. et al.," 1:22-cv-00101. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations, and compliance policies, which in turn adversely affected our stock price. No specific amounts of damages have been alleged in the putative securities class action lawsuit. We intend to vigorously defend this action; but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. An amended complaint was filed on June 24, 2022, which expands on the allegations in the original complaint and alleges a putative class period of June 24, 2021 through March 1, 2022. The amended complaint also adds as defendants the underwriters of our initial public offering. The Company has served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on November 1, 2024, the court issued a memorandum and order and entered judgement granting the motion to dismiss in full. The plaintiff appealed this decision on November 27, 2024. NeueHealth, Inc. is a healthcare company into care delivery business and a provider enablement business that includes a suite of technology, services, and clinical care solutions. NEW YORK, NY: Expert Discovery Due May 23 ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON ORTEGA, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered a scheduling order: -- Defendants' expert reports and disclosure: April 25, 2025 -- All expert discovery must be completed: May 23, 2025 -- Motion for class certification Opposition: April 25, 2025 Reply served by: May 9, 2025 -- Motion for Summary Judgment Motion served by: June 20, 2025 Opposition served by: July 11, 2025 Reply served by: July 25, 2025 New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLIOR1 at no extra charge.[CC] NIO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss NY Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- Between August and September 2022, two complaints were filed against NIO Inc., its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), in the actions captioned Saye v. NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07252 (S.D.N.Y.) and Bohonok v. NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07666 (S.D.N.Y.). Relying on a short seller reportm these complaints allege that certain of the Company's public disclosures between August 2020 and July 2022 contained false statements or omissions in violation of the Exchange Act. On December 14, 2022, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. Briefing on the Company's motion to dismiss was completed on July 31, 2023. The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss is pending, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About NIO Inc. NIO Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells smart electric vehicles in China. It offers five and six-seater electric SUVs, as well as smart electric sedans. The company also offers power solutions, including Power Home, a home charging solution; Power Swap, a battery swapping service; Power Charger and Destination Charger; Power Mobile, a mobile charging service through charging vans; Power Map, an application that provides access to a network of public chargers and their real-time information; and One Click for Power valet service. In addition, it provides repair, maintenance, and bodywork services through its NIO service centers and authorized third-party service centers; statutory and third-party liability insurance, and vehicle damage insurance through third-party insurers; repair and routine maintenance; courtesy vehicle services; roadside assistance; data packages; and auto financing and financial leasing services. Further, the company involved in the provision of energy and service packages to its users; design and technology development activities; manufacture of e-powertrains, battery packs, and components; and sales and after sales management activities. Additionally, it offers NIO Certified, a used vehicle inspection, evaluation, acquisition, and sales service. NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------- Between March and July 2019, several securities class action lawsuits were filed against NIO Inc., certain of its directors and officers, its underwriters in the IPO and its process agent. Some of these actions have been withdrawn, transferred, consolidated or dismissed. One action commenced during the aforementioned time period remains pending, under the caption In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:19-cv-01424, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs in this case allege, in sum and substance, that the Company's statements in the registration statement and/or other public statements were false or misleading and in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in August 2021, and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in August 2023. The plaintiffs served their motion for partial summary judgment on the Company on September 30, 2024. On January 30, 2025, the Company served on the plaintiffs its opposition to their motion as well as its cross-motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment briefing is ongoing. Discovery is ongoing, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About NIO Inc. NIO Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells smart electric vehicles in China. It offers five and six-seater electric SUVs, as well as smart electric sedans. The company also offers power solutions, including Power Home, a home charging solution; Power Swap, a battery swapping service; Power Charger and Destination Charger; Power Mobile, a mobile charging service through charging vans; Power Map, an application that provides access to a network of public chargers and their real-time information; and One Click for Power valet service. In addition, it provides repair, maintenance, and bodywork services through its NIO service centers and authorized third-party service centers; statutory and third-party liability insurance, and vehicle damage insurance through third-party insurers; repair and routine maintenance; courtesy vehicle services; roadside assistance; data packages; and auto financing and financial leasing services. Further, the company involved in the provision of energy and service packages to its users; design and technology development activities; manufacture of e-powertrains, battery packs, and components; and sales and after sales management activities. Additionally, it offers NIO Certified, a used vehicle inspection, evaluation, acquisition, and sales service. PARKER RESTAURANT: Hughen Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Tip Retention ----------------------------------------------------------------- WENDI HUGHEN and KAMRYN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARKER RESTAURANT GROUP LLC; 351 KINGSBURY CORNER LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL VENTURES LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL HOLDINGS LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL BURR RIDGE, LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL STREETERVILLE LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL SKOKIE, LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL LLC; 804 RANDY LLC; FULTON PROJECT LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL NASHVILLE, LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL DELRAY, LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL MIAMI, LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL NAPLES, LLC; THE HAMPTON SOCIAL ORLANDO, LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL DENVER LLC; HAMPTON SOCIAL DALLAS LLC; and BRADLEY PARKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03765 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and unlawful retention of tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Hughen and Smith have been employed by the Defendants as a bartender and a server at Hampton Social restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee since approximately May 2022 and July 2023, respectively. Parker Restaurant Group LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. 351 Kingsbury Corner LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 103, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Ventures LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Holdings LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. The Hampton Social Burr Ridge, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 705 Village Center Drive, Burr Ridge, Illinois. The Hampton Social Streeterville LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 164 E. Grand Ave., Chicago, Illinois. The Hampton Social Skokie, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 4999 Old Orchard Center, Suite C22, Skokie, Illinois. The Hampton Social LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. 804 Randy LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 804 W. Randolph, Chicago, Illinois. Fulton Project LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 850 W. Fulton Market, Chicago, Illinois. The Hampton Social Nashville, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Delray, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 North Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Miami, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 900 S. Miami Avenue, Unit #220, Miami, Florida. The Hampton Social Naples, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 910 W. Huron Street, Unit 1409, Chicago, Illinois. The Hampton Social Orlando, LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Denver LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. Hampton Social Dallas LLC is a restaurant company with its principal address at 1017 N. Hooker Street, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. Patrick Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com PERION NETWORK: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Perion Network Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F 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 a shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 16, 2024, Craig Beisner, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws against, the Company and certain of its former and current directors and officers, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the putative class action. The SDNY Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and alleges that the defendants materially misrepresented and/or omitted facts in various public disclosures concerning the Company's search advertising business and its partnership with Microsoft Bing. On August 5, 2024, the court appointed Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Vehistadrut Hamehandesim Nihul Kupot Gemel LTD, Clal Insurance Company Ltd., Clal Pension and Provident Ltd., and Atudot Pension Fund for Employees & Independent Workers Ltd. as joint lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On September 20, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the aforementioned defendants and one additional defendant, one of the founders of Content IQ (the "Amended Complaint"). On November 4, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Compliant, which is now fully briefed. The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. Headquartered in Holon, Israel, Perion is a global technology company that provides digital advertising solutions to brands, agencies, and publishers in North America, Europe, and internationally. Its stock trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "PERI." [BN] PLANT THERAPY: Frost Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLANT THERAPY HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-01313 (D. Minn., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.planttherapy.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: scrolling content that is not narrated, unclear purpose of certain links and/or buttons, failure to recognize and read a drop-down menu, and failure to recognize and read a size-chart menu. 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. Plant Therapy Holdings, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA: Pittman Balks at Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Prettylittlething.com, USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03713 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.prettylittlething.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Prettylittlething.com, USA, Inc. operates the website that offers women's clothing, including dresses, tops, activewear, bottoms, coats, jackets, plus-size clothing, jeans, shoes, bags and jewelry.[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 PUBMATIC INC: Tracks and Collects Personal Info, Semien Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIRSTIE SEMIEN, MICHAEL SELBY, GILBERT GAW, LOGAN MITCHELL, and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PUBMATIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03164-SI (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful business practice of tracking, collecting and selling the confidential information of consumers, including the Plaintiffs, through its advertising and analytics products. The Plaintiffs and the Class did not authorize the Defendant's surveillance and collection of their personal information. By conducting such widespread surveillance, the Defendant intentionally invaded the Plaintiffs' and Class members' privacy rights, as well as intruded upon their seclusion, suit says. Pubmatic, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of business in Redwood City, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jwilner@bursor.com REAL BROKERAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to May 22 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE MIHOLICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE REAL BROKERAGE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01038-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jill Burkhardt entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadline for filing motion for class certification. 1. All discovery that relates to class certification must be completed by all parties by June 20, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's class certification motion must be filed by May 22, 2025. 3. The Court defers issuing the remainder of the pretrial schedule until the Court has ruled on the motion for class certification. 4. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. Real Brokerage operates as a real estate brokerage firm. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gsHaEK at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Rodriguez Says ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00844-B (N.D. Tex., April 7, 2025) is a collective action against the Defendant to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other employees for overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff and others at RealPage whose primary job duties included data entry were, until very recently, paid on a salary basis. Allegedly, RealPage recently reclassified Plaintiff and, on information and belief, others who performed similar job duties. RealPage, Inc. is a technology company that provides property management software and data analytics solutions for the real estate industry, including multifamily, single family, commercial, and vacation rental properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com SCOTT SEMPLE: Court Tosses Rogers's Bid for Sanctions ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roger v. Scott Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01849 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying the Plaintiff motion for sanctions: Accordingly in his motions for sanctions, the Plaintiff makes allegations that prison officials are harassing him, including by withholding his mail. Those allegations appear unrelated to the claims made in the underlying complaint. If the Plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims of harassment, he must exhaust administrative remedies and file a separate complaint. The Plaintiff's motion to expedite initial review, motion for default entry, and motion for clarification are denied As explained in Judge Underhill previous order, the motion for default entry is premature because the complaint is still under initial review and has not been served on the defendants. The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or more of the many cases currently pending in this District related to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI. If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class certification is denied, the Court will enter an initial review order. The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC] SEAHORSE & GAZELLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Seahorse & Gazelle, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03732 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://gazellesports.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Seahorse & Gazelle's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Seahorse & Gazelle, Inc. operates the website that offers various types of athletic shoes, jackets, vests, bras, shorts, pants, accessories.[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 SENTARA HOSPITALS: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Ward Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE WARD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SENTARA HOSPITALS, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00203-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va., April 8, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ward worked for Sentara as a respiratory therapist and administrative associate from approximately October 2021 until February 2025. He and other patient care employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. Sentara pays Ward and the other employees by the hour but the Defendant does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, Sentara automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods." Additionally, Sentara requires the Patient Care Employees to clock in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system, but Sentara automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its primary benefit. Sentara's auto-deduction policy and rounding policy violate the state and federal laws by depriving Ward and the other patient care employees of wages, including overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, says the suit. Sentara Hospitals is a not-for-profit healthcare organization serving Virginia, northeastern North Carolina and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - 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 SHOPIFY INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lazares Due Feb. 2, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LAZARES, v. SHOPIFY (USA), INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07125-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Amendment of Pleadings/Joinder: July 31, 2025 Close of Fact Discovery: Dec. 19, 2025 Last day for Plaintiff to move for class Feb. 2, 2026 certification and serve related expert reports: Last day for the Defendant to oppose class March 20, 2026 certification and serve related expert reports: Last day for Plaintiff to file reply in April 20, 2026 support of class certification motion: Class Certification Hearing: May 14, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Shopify is a provider of cloud-based, multi-channel commerce platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bd87zm at no extra charge.[CC] SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Chow Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SHOREFRONT OPERATING LLC D/B/A SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Walter Chow, as Administrator of the Estate of Leroy Chow, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shorefront Operating LLC d/b/a Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff brings a one count claim arising under New York's Public Health Law (PHL) Sec. 2801-d, because he and every other resident of Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center suffered injury caused by the Defendants' callous decision to prioritize profits over paying for sufficient nursing staff to care for residents' needs. On Dec. 2, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Frederic Block denied on Sept. 26, 2023. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and, in the alternative, the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). On Oct. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify class, which Judge Block granted on Mar. 13, 2025. The Court certified the proposed class, comprising all Seagate residents from November 27, 2015, to the present. The Court agreed with the Plaintiff's argument that the reconsideration is warranted because there has been an intervening change in controlling law effected by the New York Appellate Division, Second Department's decision in Jenack v. Goshen Operations, LLC, which upheld the lower state court's certification of a class pursuing a Sec. 2801-d claim. Applying this reasoning, the Court held the proposed class satisfies the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23. Because the Court previously found the other prerequisites to certification satisfied, the Court finds Chow to be a suitable representative of the Class, and FBF&G qualified class counsel. The appellate case is entitled Walter Chow, as Administrator of the Estate of Leroy Chow, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, v. Shorefront Operating LLC d/b/a Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, et al., Case No. 25-787, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 4, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent WALTER CHOW, as Administrator of the Estate of Leroy Chow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. John Dominic Sardesai-Grant, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Ste. 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com Defendants-Petitioners SHOREFRONT OPERATING LLC D/B/A SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, et al. are represented by: Lori Semlies, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 150 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 490-3000 SKINNYCORP LLC: Faces Evans Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. SkinnyCorp, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03726 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://threadless.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in SkinnyCorp's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. SkinnyCorp, LLC operates the website that offers custom-designed T shirts, hoodies, sweatshirts, hats, bags, socks, and home goods.[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 SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------- Snowflake Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on February 29, 2024, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs. On October 28, 2024, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff. On December 23, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2025, the lead plaintiff informed that it would seek leave to file a second amended complaint rather than respond to the motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2025, the court ordered the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by April 7, 2025. Snowflake Inc. provides a cloud-based data platform for solving business problems, build data applications and share data and data products. SPRINKLR INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sprinklr, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that on August 13, 2024, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Boshart v. Sprinklr, Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-06132, naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. On November 22, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and changed the case title to "In re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation." On January 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class comprised of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between March 29, 2023 and June 5, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors during the putative class Period, including by failing to disclose risks associated with Sprinklr Service, one of its product suites, and that the company was focusing resources on Sprinklr Service rather than other product suites, and primarily seeks compensatory damages for all affected members of the putative class. On March 17, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled to be completed by June 2, 2025. Sprinklr is an enterprise software company that operates "Unified Customer Experience Management" (Unified-CXM) for customer service, marketing using a unified AI-based platform. STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: Jenkins Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JENKINS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 3:24-cv-05127-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that: (1) conditionally certifies a settlement class; (2) preliminarily approves a class-wide settlement of the Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Steelscape Washington LLC, (3) approves the Notice to be sent to the Settlement Class Members, and (4) schedules a final fairness hearing at least 75 days from the date of any preliminary approval (but no sooner than 100 days from the filing of this motion). The Plaintiff Michael Jenkins filed this class action suit in Cowlitz County (Washington) Superior Court on Jan. 11, 2024, alleging that Steelscape violated the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"), the Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA"), and the Wage Rebate Act ("WRA") by failing to pay its employees for all hours worked and provide legally compliant meal breaks. Steelscape timely removed to this Court. The settlement class includes Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked at the Kalama facility in Washington at any time during the Class Period (from January 16, 2021, to March 7, 2025) and for whom damages are calculated as owing by Plaintiff’s expert, except any person who timely opts out of the Settlement Class. Steelscape agrees to a Gross Settlement Amount of $6,150,000 to cover the class-wide claims for backpay, prejudgment interest, and penalties relating to the alleged unpaid hours and meal break violations; any Court-approved reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; any Court-approved class representative award; and settlement administration costs. Steelscape is a supplier of pre-painted metal. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zz3xP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew D. Boes, Esq. Lindsay L. Halm, Esq. Adam J. Berger, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union Street, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 682-2305 E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com boes@sgb-law.com berger@sgb-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Todd L. Nunn, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Telephone: (206) 623-7580 E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Murphy Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CODY MURPHY, on behalf of her children, R.M. and C.M., minors, and TRACIE NASCA, on behalf of her children, J.N. and L.N, minors, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-02204-KHV-RES (D. Kan., April 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and other private information, such as, and without limitation, account numbers and health insurance information in a data breach (Data Breach) of Defendant's network environment that occurred on Dec. 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Defendant learned of the Data Breach on Jan. 7, 2025, but did not disclosure it publicly until March 7, 2025. The Defendant confirmed that Plaintiffs' PPI, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, medical treatment/clinical information, and health information was stolen on February 24, 2025, in connection with the Data Breach but Defendant did not notify Plaintiffs until March 7, 2025. The PII and Private Information involved in the Data Breach included the individual's full name in combination with one or more of the following: their date of birth, driver's license or state ID, social security number, address, medical treatment/clinic information, health insurance information, and medical information. The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant, for injuries sustained and that will be sustained as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to maintain Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII under industry standards, and Defendant's failure to keep notice of the Data Breach from Plaintiffs and Class members until approximately well after its initial occurrence. The Defendant is a professional healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George E. Kapke, Jr., Esq. Michael J. Fleming, Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH LLC 3304 NE Ralph Powell Road Lee's Sumit, MO 64064 Telephone: (816) 461-3800 E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com mike@kapkewillerth.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONGERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Kabota Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AYNUR KABOTA, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00684 (D. Nev. April 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated patient care employees performed work for which they were not compensated. A comparison between the KRONOS timekeeping data and the Meditech data demonstrates and/or will demonstrate that Plaintiff interacted with the Meditech system when she was either off-the-clock and/or during her meal break; therefore, Plaintiff was not compensated for all the hours that she actually worked, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Kabota has been employed by Defendants as a critical care Registered Nurse (RN) in the Intermediate Care Unit. She is an hourly paid, non-exempt, patient care employee whose current hourly wage rate is $58.97, not including premiums for evening, night, and weekend shifts, as well as on-call and call back pay premiums. Sunrise operates four hospitals, five freestanding ERs, nineteen 19 urgent care centers, and five surgery centers throughout Las Vegas and Southern Nevada. Sunrise operates facilities, including but not limited to Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, MountainView Hospital, Southern Hills Hospital and Medical Center, and the Sunrise Children’s Hospital, as well as the CareNow Urgent Care and ER at Aliante. HCA is a for-profit operator of healthcare facilities that owns and operates 186 hospitals and approximately 2,400 sites of care, including surgery centers, freestanding emergency rooms, urgent care centers, and physicians’ clinics in 20 states and the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NE 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com TILRAY BRANDS: Court OKs $21MM Aphria Securities Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2019, a putative securities class action was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Tilray's wholly-owned subsidiary, Aphria, Inc., and certain of its former officers and directors. The Aphria Canadian Class Action was subsequently amended in September 2022 to proceed only against Aphria and two of its former officers and directors as named defendants. The class plaintiff sought damages in the amount of CAD $875,000,000 pursuant to Ontario securities legislation on behalf of all class members who acquired Aphria's common shares between January 29, 2018 and December 3, 2018. The Aphria Canadian Class Action stemmed from Aphria's acquisition of Nuuvera Inc. and LATAM Holdings Inc. in March and September 2018, respectively, alleging that the value of the acquired assets was misrepresented as being significantly higher than their actual worth, and that insiders at Aphria personally benefitted from the acquisitions at the expense of investors. Aphria and the individual defendants denied the allegations made in the Aphria Canadian Class Action and vigorously defended against them. Trial was scheduled to begin in January 2025. On February 5, 2025, Aphria and the individual defendants successfully reached an agreement with the class plaintiff to settle the Aphria Canadian Class Action. The settlement agreement provides for the complete dismissal of the Aphria Canadian Class Action, with prejudice, in exchange for an aggregate payment from all defendants equal to CAD $30,000, or approximately US $21,000,000. The settlement agreement also provides for the dismissal, with prejudice, of the four individual Canadian lawsuits pursuing the same allegations of wrongdoing against Aphria and former and current officers and directors. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Aphria or the other defendants. The Settlement Amount will be primarily funded by the outstanding balance under Aphria's D&O Insurance Policy and by the individual defendants. Aphria will fund the remaining unpaid portion of the Settlement Amount, currently estimated to equal approximately CAD $8,300,000 (or approximately US $5,800,000). The settlement agreement was approved by the Court on March 27, 2025, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. TOMBOLO LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tombolo, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03146 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Tombolocompany.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is allegedly denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the services Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tombolocompany.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Tombolo. Yet, Tombolocompany.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Tombolo 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. [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 TRANSFER TRUCKING: Alvis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Alvis, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated v. TRANSFER TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC, TRANSFER TRUCKING AND MATERIALS, PRESTON PRICE and SHAUN FLANNERY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00063 (E.D. Tenn., April 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis based on the amount of time Plaintiff expended working and registered in this "App," including paying Plaintiff an hourly rate for Plaintiff's work in excess of forty hours per week. However, Defendants did not cause Plaintiff to be paid overtime premium compensation for Plaintiff's work in excess of forty hours per week; instead, Defendants paid Plaintiff at the same rate of pay for Plaintiff's work in excess of forty hours per week as Defendants paid Plaintiff for Plaintiff's first forty hours of work per week. The Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Defendants that Defendants should be paying Plaintiff overtime premium compensation for Plaintiff's overtime work, but Defendants continued to refuse to pay Plaintiff overtime premium compensation, despite being aware that Plaintiff was continuing to work more than forty hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants operating heavy equipment on private property (i.e., not driving on public roads) in Tennessee. Transfer Trucking and Materials LLC is a for-profit Tennessee limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com UNITED COAL: Matney Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MARK MATNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. UNITED COAL COMPANY LLC, WELLMORE COAL COMPANY, LLC, and WELLMORE ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00021-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., April 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, for Plaintiff and a class and collective composed of workers who, in one or more workweeks paid from March 28, 2023 to the present, were deprived of wages, including overtime compensation, by Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed pre-shift work prior to clocking in, including donning protective clothing, and gathering, calibrating and donning protective devices. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees as coal miners to work at Defendants' coal mines located along the Kentucky/Virginia border in the three years preceding the filing of this action. Allegedly, the Defendants classified Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees as non-exempt under the FLSA, when Defendants would credit Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees with working more than 40 hours in a workweek. UNITED COAL COMPANY LLC provides mineral products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis I. Tahinci, Esq. TAHINCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 105 Ford Avenue, Suite 3 Kingsport, TN 37663 Telephone: (423) 406-1151 E-mail: alexis@tahincilaw.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com - and - John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC P.O. Box 1746 Lexington, KY 40588 Telephone: (859) 866-3097 E-mail: John@EmploymentLawKY.com UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over AEA and Immigration Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- D.B.U. and R.M.M., and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP ET AL., Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS (D. Colo., April 12, 2025), arises under the Alien Enemies Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its implementing regulations, the Convention Against Torture, the All Writs Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On March 14, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the AEA Proclamation, which provides that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of Tren de Aragua, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs were wrongfully tagged as members of TdA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert that the said proclamation violates the process and protections that Congress has prescribed elsewhere in the country's immigration laws for the removal of non-citizens. United States of America is a federal republic comprised of 50 states. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara R. Neel, Esq. Emma Mclean-Riggs, Esq. Anna I. Kurtz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 402-3107 E-mail: sneel@aclu-co.org emcleanriggs@aclu-co.org akurtz@aclu-co.org - and - Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org odjadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org - and - Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org MNgo@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org - and - Tamara F. Goodlette, Esq. Laura P. Lunn, Esq. Monique R. Sherman, Esq. ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK E-mail: tgoodlette@rmian.org llunn@rmian.org msherman@rmian.org UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA COLE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE/BLUMENTHAL, INC., and CHOICE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00576-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion on extending the deadline to file response to the conditional certification motion by 21 days, up and including May 12, 2025. The Defendants have worked diligently and in good faith to review the motion for conditional certification and begin preparing their response, which will require complex and extensive focus on both factual and legal issues. However, the counsel was appointed to serve as lead (and sole) counsel in a federal felony criminal prosecution set for trial on April 28, 2025, in United States v. Slaughter, No. 7:23-cr-00051-FL (E.D.N.C.). At the time the parties agreed on and proposed a thirty-day response deadline to the motion for conditional certification, which Defendants knew would make their response due on April 21, 2025, undersigned counsel had not been appointed and was not aware of this trial date. Due to the demands of trial preparation, undersigned counsel's attention has been diverted from this matter and undersigned counsel will not be able to participate in the preparation of the response to the degree expected within the current deadline. Undersigned counsel has capable co-counsel in this matter; however, given undersigned counsel’s role in this case so far and the magnitude of this case, Defendants’ interests are best served by having undersigned counsel available to participate in preparing the response. On July 12, 2024, Ms. Cole filed the putative collective and class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zyJ7s6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew S. Chamberlin, Esq. Derrick C. Foard, Esq. Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq. Michelle A. Liguori, Esq. ELLIS & WINTERS LLP Greensboro, NC 27402 Telephone: (336) 217-4193 Facsimile: (336) 217-4198 E-mail: andrew.chamberlin@elliswinters.com derrick.foard@elliswinters.com kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com michelle.liguori@elliswinters.com UNIVERSITY CREDIT: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY CREDIT UNION is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Saray Ortiz, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. University Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06013-DDP-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On Dec. 2, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Dean D. Pregerson denied on Mar. 4, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Ortiz v. University Credit Union, Case No. 25-2207, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 4, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 9, 2025; -- Appellant's Transcript Order was due on April 15, 2025; -- Appellant's Transcript is due on May 15, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 24, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee SARAY ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq. Luis Leonardo Lozada, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Defendant-Appellant UNIVERSITY CREDIT UNION is represented by: Kendra S. Canape, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 VELODYNE LIDAR: Parties in Securities Suit Agree to Settle ---------------------------------------------------------- Ouster, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March 21, 2025, that on March 13, 2024, the parties to a consolidated shareholder suit against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. filed a stipulation of settlement. The parties have agreed to mediation on November 29, 2023. The company completed the merger with Velodyne Lidar, Inc. on February 10, 2023. On March 12, 2021, a putative class action entitled "Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al.," No. 3:21-cv-01736-VC, was filed against Velodyne, and its executives Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleged purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the role of Velodyne's former CEO David Hall, and removal as Chairman of Velodyne's Board of Directors. The complaint alleged that purported class members have suffered losses and sought, among other things, an award of compensatory damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne's securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. This and other class actions have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 1, 2021, based on allegations similar to those in the earlier class actions. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint on November 1, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on February 11, 2022. Velodyne filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to dismiss as it relates to the claims related to David Hall's role with Velodyne, but granted the motion to dismiss as to all other claims. On March 13, 2024, the parties to the consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed a stipulation of settlement to settle this lawsuit, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by Velodyne or the individual defendants. On April 19, 2024, the court preliminarily approved the settlement that provides for a payment of $27.5 million, of which $23.4 million was funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement charge of $4.1 million was paid in June 2024. As a result of the court approving the settlement, issuing final judgment, and dismissing the lawsuit on August 19, 2024. Ouster, Inc. is a provider of high-resolution digital lidar sensors that offer advanced 3D vision to machinery, vehicles, robots, and fixed infrastructure assets, allowing each to understand and visualize the surrounding world and ultimately enabling safe operation and ubiquitous autonomy. VOLVO CAR: Faces Saleh Suit Over Vehicles' Battery Defect --------------------------------------------------------- Burhaan Saleh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLVO CAR USA, LLC; VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01806-JS (E.D. Pa., April 8, 2025) is brought to remedy violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in connection with Defendants' manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons who purchased or leased certain Volvo plug-in hybrid models that were recalled and manufactured from the years 2020 through 2022. According to the complaint, the Class Vehicle's problem stems from a potential short circuit on the high-voltage battery since in the SPA platform, batteries are not installed under the boot floor but in the center of the vehicle, the transmission tunnel. Under certain conditions, these battery cells may experience an internal short circuit, potentially leading to "thermal runaway," better known as a fire risk. Had Plaintiff, Class Members, and the consuming public known that the Class Vehicles would have a defective battery module that created a fire hazard that could engulf the Class Vehicles in flames at any time, they would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Volvo Car USA, LLC is an automotive company based in Mahwah, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 834-6030 Facsimile: (610) 825-7579 E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com VXN GROUP: Pretrial Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Thoma Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE ANNE THOMA, v. VXN GROUP, LLC ET AL, Case No. 2:23-cv-04901-WLH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order. -- Fact and Expert Discovery Cut-Offs The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery, including all hearings on any related motions, must be completed. All expert disclosures must be made in writing. The parties should begin expert discovery shortly after the initial designation of experts. -- Non-Discovery Motions Deadline. The parties are required under Local Rule 7-3 to meet and confer to attempt to resolve disputes before filing a motion. Cut-Off Date is the Last Day for Hearing the Motion. Judge Hsu hears non-discovery motions in civil cases generally through in-person appearances on Fridays at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OYjpzp at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss VillageMD Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- In July and September 2024, purported shareholders filed two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Bhaila v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-05907; Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., 24-cv-08559) against Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., and certain of its executives alleging that Defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the Company's U.S. Retail Pharmacy and U.S. Healthcare segments. The two cases have been consolidated into a single action. On December 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint focusing their claims on alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding the performance of the Company's investment in VillageMD. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages for alleged losses caused by decreases in the Company's share price following certain disclosures about VillageMD’s performance and the Company's intention to reduce its stake in VillageMD. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against it, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a global retail pharmacy operator. WEBHELP AMERICAS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASHA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated, v. WEBHELP AMERICAS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-22043-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion and extending the deadline for it to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification and court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs up to and including May 12, 2025. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, which was amended on June 11, 2024. The parties attended mediation on February 10, 2025, which resulted in an impasse. On Feb. 19, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report with a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order. The Defendant requested discovery prior to the motion for conditional certification. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Court issued an order, denying the Defendant's request for discovery and requiring the Plaintiff to file for conditional certification by March 28, 2025. Webhelp is a customer service outsourcing company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nZvk1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley W. Butcher, Esq. THE DORCEY LAW FIRM, PLC 13515 Bell Tower Drive, Second Floor Fort Meyers, FL 33907 Telephone: (239) 322-1615 E-mail: bbutcher@dorceylaw.com - and - Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert R. Vorhees, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 289-1247 Facsimile: (813) 289-6530 E-mail: robert.vorhees@ogletree.com - and - Mekesha H. Montgomery, FROST BROWN TODD LLP 150 3rd Ave S #1900 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 251-5585 E-mail: mmontgomery@fbtlaw.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Liparulo Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LIPARULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:25-cv-00610-SRU (D. Conn., April 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Accordingly, in early March 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant’s network server and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at least, even after the patient-provider relationship has ended. Healthcare providers like Defendant that handle Private Information owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which allowed criminal hackers to access and steal patients' Private Information from the Defendant's care, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a healthcare provider furnishing a wide variety of services to Connecticut patients. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-3457 E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nathanson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JON NATHANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:25-cv-00609-AWT (D. Conn., April 16, 2025), is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Accordingly, in early March 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant’s network server and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. The Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at least, even after the patient-provider relationship has ended. Healthcare providers like Defendant that handle Private Information owe the individuals to whom that data relates a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect such information from disclosure to unauthorized third parties, and to keep it safe and confidential. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which allowed criminal hackers to access and steal patients' Private Information from the Defendant's care, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a healthcare provider offering a variety of services to Connecticut patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-3457 E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***