/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250429.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 85 Headlines 3 TIMES 90: Wins Bid to Dismiss Black ADA Lawsuit ACADIA: Class Action Summary Notice in Birmingham Suit Okayed AERA ENERGY: Radford Suit Remanded to Kern County Superior Court ALATRADE FOODS: Fails to Provide Notice Under WARN Act ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Mullis Suit Alleges ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Payne Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA AMAZON.COM INC: Miller's Bid for Production of Discovery Denied AMAZON.COM: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Appointed in King, et al. Case AMERICAN FIRST: Court Lifts Say on Trimble Contract Lawsuit APPLE INC: Appeals Court Greenlights Funder Class Action Lawsuit AVANQUEST NA: Fernandez Consumer Lawsuit Remanded to State Court BACIK COMPANY: Kowalczyk Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Lift Stay on Connor Case BANK OF AMERICA: Court Won't Lift Stay on Delapaz Lawsuit BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Court Certifies Crypto Class Action Suit BRAND EVANGELISTS: Jackson Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website BRIDGE INVESTMENT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Apollo CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify FLSA Collective CHINTU PATEL: Killion's Motion to File Amended Complaint Granted CHRISTIE'S INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Dismisses Tithing Class Action Suit CONNECTICUT: All Plaintiffs Nixed Except Coleman in Suit v. Semple CPS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Washburn Alleges CROSSROADS TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges DX ENTERPRISES: Settlement in McClaine Suit Obtains Final Court Nod E.L.F. BEAUTY: Faces Boston Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop EISNER ADVISORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Watzka Alleges EISNER ADVISORY: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Martson Alleges ENGEL & VOLKERS: Faces Lopez Suit Over Anticompetitive Practices EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 FAMILY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stokes Suit Alleges FEDERAL BUREAU: Court Tosses Bacote Lawsuit for Procedural Mootness FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue in Dees Suit FUNKO INC: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $14.75MM GENWORTH LIFE: Kaplan Suit Removed from State Court to D.D.C. GIGA WATT: District Court Tosses Dam Appeal for Lack of Standing GIGA WATT: E.D. Washington Grants Bid to Dismiss Dam's Appeal GODADDY.COM LLC: Drazen's Bid to Certify Order for Appeal Granted HEALTHEQUITY INC: Arbitration-Related Discovery OK'd in Hafoka Suit HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Court Won't Seal Portions of Settlement Motion HERTZ CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jonte Suit Says IBOTTA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 16 IBOTTA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit IGLOO PRODUCTS: Flip & Tow Coolers Not Safe, Nguyen Alleges IMMEDIATE APPLIANCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anticompetitive Practices INDIAN HARBOR: Court Stays Class Discovery in Morrison Suit JOHN R. MCKOWEN: Loses Bid to Reopen Paulson Securities Lawsuit KARBON BIKES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Thorne Says KAWEAH DELTA: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Lawsuit KENNY AMURO: Landlords Lose Bid to Enjoin Class Arbitration KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: McCarty's Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied LABORATORY SERVICES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Says LIFE INSURANCE: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Hoffman Suit MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MARK D WALDRON: E.D. Washington Dismisses Dam Suit With Prejudice MURAD LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges NEW MILANI: Jackson Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website NEW YORK CITY: Stephen Insists Being Class Member in Jones Suit NISSAN NORTH: Agrees to Settle Defective CVT Class Action NORDIC WARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Made in USA Claims NORTH DAKOTA: Glaum's Claims for Money & Punitive Damages Tossed RB GLOBAL: Faces Swanson Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing Deal REALOGY HOLDINGS: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $20-Mil. SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Faces Kremitz FLSA Suit Over Bonus Pay Scheme SHIELD PROTECTIVE: Neugebauer Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA SIMILASAN CORP: Agrees to Settle Eye Drop Class Suit for $3.575MM SINOVAC BIOTECH: Faces Class Suit Over Yin's Take Over Attempt SIRIUS XM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Posternock Lawsuit SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Cordero Class Action TREACE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 10 TWITTER INC: Zeman Loses Bid to File Second Amended Complaint TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Suit for $22.5MM UNITED FURNITURE: Court Narrows Claims in Neal, et al. WARN Lawsuit UNITED SERVICES: Agrees to $3.25-Mil. Data Breach Suit Settlement US CLAIMS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, O'Bringer Says WADE LAW: Faces $80M Class Action Suit Over ADA Violations WEIRTON, WV: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsafe Water Services WYOMING COUNTY, NY: Stockweather Opts Out of Claims in Gworek Suit YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Harvin Suit Alleges ********* 3 TIMES 90: Wins Bid to Dismiss Black ADA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Natasha C. Merle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted 3 Times 90, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as JAHRON BLACK, Plaintiff, – against – 3 TIMES 90, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-06235-NCM-CLP (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Jahron Black brings this putative class action against defendant 3 Times 90, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12101, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law Secs. 290, et seq., the New York State Civil Rights Law, N.Y. Civil Rights Law Secs. 40, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law N.Y.C. Admin. Code Sec. 8-107, for failing to make its website accessible to people with visual impairments. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, arguing that it has been rendered moot through compliance with the ADA. Plaintiff opposes. Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind individual who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant 3 Times 90 is a Chinese restaurant that uses its website to advertise its menu options and its physical restaurant locations. Plaintiff alleges that he made numerous attempts to visit and use 3 Times 90's website to learn about the goods and services offered. He first attempted to visit the site on August 9, 2023, and then on Aug. 15, 2023. Plaintiff filed the instant action on Aug. 18, 2023, and then he attempted to visit 3 Times 90's website again on Sept. 12, 2024 and Nov. 1, 2024. Plaintiff claims that his screen-reading software is unable to access defendant's website, and thus he has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of 3times.com and of the opportunity to enjoy the facilities, goods and services of 3 Times 90's physical locations. Following oral argument, the Court afforded plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff did so, after which defendant renewed its previously filed motion to dismiss based on mootness, and filed a letter stating its position that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to demonstrate that he had suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing. Plaintiff argues that the Court should not consider whether he has sufficiently pled subject matter jurisdiction because the defense is not properly pled or raised in the Motion to Dismiss that Defendant is relying upon. According to the Court, this argument is without merit. The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from some party. The Court finds considering the totality of the relevant facts, plaintiff has failed to plausibly suggest that he intends to return to defendant's website and accordingly has failed to show a risk of future harm that is sufficiently imminent and substantial to establish standing. As plaintiff has failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing, the Court is precluded from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Having failed to allege a viable claim arising under federal law, and finding that the parties do not appear to be diverse on the face of plaintiff's complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u? l=KjE0Dn from PacerMonitor.com. ACADIA: Class Action Summary Notice in Birmingham Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable William Q. Hayes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed plan for dissemination of notice of pendency of class action in the case captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; STEPHEN R. DAVIS; and SRDJAN (SERGE) R. STANKOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.). On March 11, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by Plaintiffs City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System and Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund. The Court certified the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Acadia common stock during the period from September 9, 2019 through April 4, 2021 (inclusive), and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) the past and current officers and representatives, heirs, parents, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and assigns of any excluded person or entity; and (iv) any entity in which any excluded person(s) have or had a majority ownership interest, or that is or was controlled by any excluded person or entity. The Court appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the third-party administrator who will administer Plaintiffs' Notice Plan. The Court approves, as to form and substance, the proposed forms of the Postcard Notice, the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, and the Notice of Pendency of Class Action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hPyyey from PacerMonitor.com. AERA ENERGY: Radford Suit Remanded to Kern County Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California remands the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER RADFORD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AERA ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00921-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern. Plaintiff Christopher Radford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, moves to remand this action to Kern County Superior Court. Separately, Defendants Aera Energy Services Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, move for judgment on the pleadings. The parties filed oppositions and replies to both motions. The Court held oral argument on Feb. 10, 2025. On April 16, 2024, Radford brought this civil class action against Aera in Kern County Superior Court, alleging that Radford and other non-exempt employees suffered violations of several provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders during their employment with Aera. On July 8, 2024, Radford filed a first amended class action complaint ("FAC") alleging claims for (1) minimum wage violations, (2) rest period violations, (3) wage statement penalties, (4) waiting time penalties, (5) unfair competition, and (6) civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Radford seeks recovery for unpaid wages, statutory penalties, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and restitution. Aera removed the action to this Court on Aug. 8, 2024 ("Notice of Removal"). In its Notice of Removal, Aera asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because Radford's action arises under federal law. Aera alleges that, while Radford does not explicitly plead any federal claims, the state law claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). Aera also contends that if some, but not all, of the state law claims were found to be preempted, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims as they are part of the same case and controversy. In his motion to remand, filed Nov. 27, 2024, Radford argues that his claims arise solely under state law because they are not preempted by Section 301, and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as there is no federal question presented. In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed Nov. 26, 2024, Aera asserts several theories as to why Radford's preempted claims must be dismissed, including that the FAC fails to sufficiently state cognizable claims and that Radford failed to exhaust required grievance procedures under various collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs"). In order to determine Section 301 preemption, Judge Sherriff notes that the Ninth Circuit employs a two-step test, citing Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). First, the court must consider whether the asserted cause of action involves a right that exists solely as a result of the CBA. The "essential inquiry" considers whether a claim seeks purely to vindicate a right or duty created by the CBA itself. If so, then the claim is preempted, and the analysis ends there. If not, the court proceeds to the second step and considers whether the right is nevertheless substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement. A right is substantially dependent on analysis of a CBA if it requires interpreting a CBA, necessarily involving an "active dispute" over the meaning of the contract terms. However, a state law claim may avoid preemption if it does not raise questions about the scope, meaning, or application of the CBA. Under step one of the Burnside analysis, the Court considers if the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim solely arises under the CBAs. Judge Sherriff finds Radford can bring his minimum wage claim under state law, and the claim does not arise under the CBAs. Under step two of the Burnside analysis, Judge Sherriff says there is no need to interpret the CBAs to address Radford's minimum wages claim. Judge Sherriff holds that Radford's minimum wage claim is not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Judge Sherriff also finds, among other things, that Aera has not met its burden to show that the Working Time Policy ("WTP") is part of the parties' negotiated CBAs. For one, "Operating Orders" is not defined anywhere in the CBAs or in any contemporaneous company documents found in the record. The CBAs do not reference the WTP or set forth any of its provisions, and Aera offers no evidence to suggest that the parties bargained for the WTP's provisions to be in the CBAs. Accordingly, Radford's rest period claim is not preempted under Section 301. As Radford's first two claims are not preempted by Section 301, the remainder of his claims is similarly not preempted. Aera removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction. As Radford's claims all arise under state law and none of them are preempted, Judge Sherriff finds there is no federal question presented and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Accordingly, the Court orders: 1. Radford's motion to remand is granted; 2. Aera's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as moot; 3. This action is remanded to Kern County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 4. The Clerk of Court will mail a copy of this order to the clerk of Kern County Superior Court; and 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw7kxw46 from PacerMonitor.com. ALATRADE FOODS: Fails to Provide Notice Under WARN Act ------------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA PERRY, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ALATRADE FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00521-CLM (N.D. Ala., April 8, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act), by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other similarly situated former employees, The Defendant operates a facility located at 6 Downing Drive, Phenix City, Alabama, where Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked (the facility). Accordingly, within 90 days of March 27, 2025, the Defendant terminated over fifty and/or at least 33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff, at the Facility. The Defendant failed to provide any advance notice of these layoffs and has laid off employees consistently since January 2025. The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around March 27, 2025, and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Jerome Tapley, Esq. Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq. Hunter Phares, Esq. CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com rlutz@corywatson.com hphares@corywatson.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Mullis Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN MULLIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT LLC, and HOAG CLINIC, Case No. 4:25-cv-03096 (D. Neb., April 17, 2025) arises out of the public exposure of the confidential, private information of Defendant’s current and former patients, Personally Identifying Information and, Protected Health Information, including of Plaintiff and the Class Members, which was in the possession of Defendants in a cyberattack on ALN's systems, beginning on or around March 2024, caused by the Defendants' collective failures to adequately safeguard that Personal Information. According to the Defendants, the Personal Information unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach includes patients' name, dates of birth, health insurance information, demographic information, Social Security number, and financial information. 3 The Defendants failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Although Defendants purportedly discovered the Data Breach on March of 2024, they failed to immediately notify and warn current and former patients, with ALN waiting until March 21, 2025, to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' failures to protect current and former patients’ sensitive Personal Information and warn them promptly and fully about the Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis. Plaintiff Mullis is a natural person and resident and citizen of California, where she intends to remain. Plaintiff Mullis is a former patient of Hoag, and a Data Breach victim. ALN, a healthcare advisory firm, provides services such as, physician, facility, and non-par provider hospital billing, professional coding, claims recovery, review of billing practices, and credentialing. Hoag is a regional health care network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS: Payne Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY PAYNE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS HEALTH NETWORK, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00413 (S.D. Ohio, April 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages in violation of the Fair labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is an individual, a United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Ohio living in the Southern District of Ohio. She worked for the Defendant as a contractor for approximately 13 weeks from June 2022 to September 2022. The Defendant operates and conducts substantial business activities throughout Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite No. 126 Columbus, Ohio 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com AMAZON.COM INC: Miller's Bid for Production of Discovery Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of discovery in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.). Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of discovery related to class certification. Defendants, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Logistics, Inc., ("Amazon") have responded in opposition to the motion. The Court has reviewed the parties' briefs and relevant legal authorities and denies the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. The Plaintiffs, who worked as Amazon Flex delivery drivers, filed this putative class action claiming that Amazon unlawfully withheld portions of their drivers' tips. The Plaintiffs allege that they did not know about Amazon's unfair and deceptive practices until the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") publicly announced in February 2021 that it had filed a case against Amazon relating to those practices. During class certification discovery, Amazon produced a spreadsheet that contains information for over 150,000 putative class members, including the amount of the allegedly wrongfully allocated tips. Amazon redacted the personally identifiable information, including the names and contact information. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Amazon to produce an unredacted copy of the spreadsheet. The Plaintiffs assert that the names and contact information are relevant to class certification. Amazon argues that the Plaintiffs fail to establish why putative class members' names and contact information are relevant to class certification issues. The Court agrees. The Plaintiffs have already filed their class certification motion, and Amazon has not yet filed its response. The Plaintiffs assert that Amazon may challenge the "commonality, adequacy, and typicality" requirements, but they do not explain how the provision of names and contact information of potential class members will assist the Plaintiffs in responding to such challenges, Judge Rothstein says. Amazon has represented that it does not intend to offer any testimony of putative class members other than the proposed class representatives. Further, Amazon has also represented that it will produce the unredacted spreadsheet should the case proceed to discovery on the merits. Additionally, Judge Rothstein points out, the Court's rules are clear: motions to compel must be filed before the discovery deadline. Class discovery closed on Feb. 14, 2025. Although it is apparent that the parties have been attempting to reach agreement, the Court finds that the dispute is untimely, since it was raised not only after the class discovery deadline but also after the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Under these circumstances, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of an unredacted spreadsheet at this time. However, should circumstances change after the filing of Amazon's response to the certification motion, the Plaintiffs may again raise this issue to the Court should they be unable to reach an agreement with Amazon after conferring in good faith. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is denied without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8mnvv877 from PacerMonitor.com. AMAZON.COM: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Appointed in King, et al. Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiffs' motion The Terrell Marshall Law Group, Clarkson Law Firm, and Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery as interim co-lead counsel for the putative class in the case captioned as ALAMAZE KING, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:24-cv-02009-KKE (W.D. Wash.). According to the Court, the three firms representing Plaintiffs in this matter have submitted evidence to show that they satisfy the four Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factors. The Court has no reason to doubt counsel's assertions that they have dedicated considerable time and work to identify and investigate the claims brought in this case, that they have substantial experience litigating complex class actions, that they have extensive knowledge and experience litigating consumer class actions, and that they can continue to commit substantial resources to representing the class. The proposed interim co-lead counsel also represent that they do not have any conflicts of interest, and are committed to efficient and cost-effective management of this litigation. These statements, which are not opposed by Defendants, lead the Court to find that appointment of these firms as interim co-lead counsel is appropriate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U4Mlwg from PacerMonitor.com. AMERICAN FIRST: Court Lifts Say on Trimble Contract Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KAITLYN TRIMBLE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE, LLC, Defendant Case No. 24-cv-00969-RDB (D. Md.), Senior Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order issued on Feb. 21, 2025, granting the motion of American First Finance, LLC to compel arbitration and staying this action pending the completion of the arbitration process. This contract dispute arose from a purchase order agreement between Plaintiff Kaitlyn Trimble and Defendant American First Finance, LLC. Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for Certification of Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in Johnson v. Continental Finance Company, LLC, 131 F.4th 169 (4th Cir. 2025), issued several weeks after this Court's Memorandum Order, demands reconsideration of the Court's decision. In her Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court either revise its prior Memorandum Order or, alternatively, certify the arbitration issue for appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). She contends that the Court committed a clear error of law by ruling in a manner inconsistent with cases she asserts are controlling. She argues that the Fourth Circuit's decision in Johnson compels reconsideration. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the Court's conclusion that the Change Clause in the Agreement does not apply to the Arbitration Provision. In its Memorandum Order, the Court determined that even if the Change Clause were to apply to the arbitration provision, the requirement that any changes be made in writing would prevent the Change Clause from rendering illusory American First's agreement to arbitrate. The Fourth Circuit's opinion in Johnson, however, requires that the Court reconsider this determination. Specifically, Johnson squarely suggested that a change clause must contain "plain language" requiring "prior notice." In this case, as the Court explained in its Memorandum Order, the Change Clause requires written notice but does not include any express requirement that notice be provided in advance of the changes. Thus, the plain language of the Change Clause would allow American First to withdraw its mutual promise to arbitrate and only notify Trimble of that change in writing after it had been made. Under Johnson, therefore, the written notice limitation in the Change Clause is insufficient to prevent the Change Clause from rendering illusory American First's promise to arbitrate. Accordingly, Johnson marks an intervening change in controlling law that requires the Court to reconsider its Memorandum Order. Judge Bennett explains, "Under Johnson, the Change Clause both applies to the Arbitration Provision in this case and lacks a sufficient notice requirement. That is, because the Change Clause applies to the Arbitration Provision and lacks any requirement for advance notice, it enables American First to withdraw or change its promise to arbitrate in a manner that renders that promise illusory. Under Maryland law, an arbitration agreement lacks consideration -- and thus was never formed -- when it is based on an illusory promise. As such, the parties in this action cannot have formed any agreement to arbitrate because American First's purported promise to arbitrate all claims was illusory." The Fourth Circuit's intervening decision in Johnson invalidates the reasoning behind this Court's Memorandum Order. Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit's suggestion in Johnson that a change clause must explicitly allow for prior notice to avoid rendering illusory a promise to arbitrate necessitates reconsideration of this Court's previous holding. To bring the Memorandum Order in line with the Fourth Circuit's intervening holding in Johnson, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is granted, the Court holds. The Court vacates its previous Memorandum Order and now denies Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. As such, the stay in this case is lifted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nwNOgI from PacerMonitor.com. APPLE INC: Appeals Court Greenlights Funder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Rigby, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that funders backing class actions entitled to share of damages before their distribution to claimants. The April 17 decision in Gutmann v Apple (16 April) is a victory for class representative Justin Gutmann, who had earlier succeeded at the CAT in having his estimated GBP850m opt-out claim certified on behalf of more than 20 million iPhone users against Apple, the CAT having approved the funding arrangements. Gutmann alleges Apple misled users over an upgrade that slowed phones down, reducing their value. A particularly august tribunal handed down the unanimous ruling, with Sir Julian Flaux serving as Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Green as the Senior Presiding Judge, and Lord Justice Birss as the deputy head of civil justice. Writing for the court, Flaux said: "I have concluded that the CAT does have jurisdiction to order that the funder's fee or return can be paid out of the damages awarded to the class in priority to the class. Whether or not such an order should be made would be a matter for the CAT in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction." Noting Nicholas Bacon KC's submissions as counsel for Gutmann, Flaux added: "Once it is recognised that the CAT has such a jurisdiction . . . there can be absolutely nothing wrong with the [class representative] entering into an LFA [litigation funding agreement] which makes provision for that to happen." Responding to Apple's counsel's arguments regarding the relevant legislation, Flaux said firmly: "Ingenious though the arguments on jurisdiction advanced by Lord Wolfson KC were, I am unable to accept them. Payment of the funder's return and lawyers' fees from [awarding] damages in priority to payment to the class is permitted." Flaux added that the LFA was "always subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the CAT to determine [the] appropriate order to make". Gutmann said in a statement: "Apple has attempted to overturn every major decision of the tribunal, delay proceedings and increase the costs of litigation. I am delighted that the Court of Appeal has issued a strong, unanimous verdict showing them their tactics will not work." Dorothea Antzoulatos, a director at Charles Lyndon, which represents Gutmann, said: "Funders require certainty that if a case is successful, they will make a fair return on their often sizeable and lengthy investments in these important cases. "We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that funders, and other stakeholders, do not need to hope that enough is left over after sums have been distributed to class members to seek their return and anticipate that this will confirm to the funding market that the UK class action regime is a good place to invest." The decision is a welcome boost for funders given the ongoing uncertainty created by the Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR decision, which held that litigation funding agreements that allowed funders to receive a share of damages were Damages-Based Agreements (DBA), rendering many unenforceable. Erso Capital released a statement, which said: "The court's decision sends a clear message to the market: the UK's class action regime remains open for business, and funding it is not a shot in the dark. That's good news for funders, the claimants and legal teams who depend on us to bring high-stakes, high-cost litigation." Matthew Lo, director at Exton Advisors, added: "The possibility of being paid out in priority to class members can be fundamental to funders, particularly where a high take-up of damages by the class is likely, for example. "It would be a perverse outcome if funders were disincentivised from investing in cases with a possibility of high take-up, which should be the very cases the regime encourages to be brought." Cameron Azari, senior vice president of global claims administration firm Epiq, said he believed the ruling would encourage "more funders to invest", adding: "The regime in the UK is nascent and, under the current framework, without funding, it can't work." In June, the Court of Appeal is due to consider a second appeal by Apple -- and a number of other defendants in CAT collective claims -- over whether LFAs in which returns are calculated as a multiple of the investment are DBAs and therefore fall foul of PACCAR. A Civil Justice Council inquiry into funding, which has been tasked with providing a solution to PACCAR, is also due to report in the summer. Covington & Burling, which represents Apple, was contacted for comment. [GN] AVANQUEST NA: Fernandez Consumer Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the class action lawsuit captioned as Antonio Fernandez v. Avanquest North America LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08620-MRA-MAR (C.D. Cal.) to Los Angeles County Superior Court. On Nov. 16, 2023, Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Avanquest, bringing claims for false advertising and unfair competition. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Avanquest violated California's Automatic Renewal Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17600 et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq., by selling California consumers a digital photo-editing computer program that automatically renewed itself when the original subscription ran out, without first notifying consumers or giving them an opportunity to opt-out of the renewal. On Oct. 7, 2024, Avanquest removed this action to federal court, arguing that it has jurisdiction due to diversity between the parties and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Plaintiff argues that this action should be remanded to state court because the District Court does not have equitable jurisdiction over this case and Plaintiff does not have Article III standing for injunctive relief. Although Plaintiff acknowledges the District Court may either remand or dismiss the case, Plaintiff argues that, between these two options, remand is the appropriate procedural step. The District Court agrees. Because Plaintiff has not pleaded that he lacks an adequate remedy at law, the District Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over his claims. The District Court emphasizes that although Plaintiff alleges that he has been injured by Defendant in the past, Plaintiff intentionally fails to plead that he is likely to suffer a future injury. Put differently, Plaintiff has not pleaded that he is likely to purchase Avanquest's product again, and, therefore, it is unlikely (if not impossible) for Plaintiff to suffer the same type of injury alleged in his complaint. Because he has not shown that there is a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Plaintiff has failed to establish standing and may not assert his claim for injunctive relief, the District Court holds. While Plaintiff argues that the lack of equitable jurisdiction and Article III standing requires remand, Defendant argues that these issues go to the merits of the claims, and that because the District Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to diversity jurisdiction and CAFA, any deficiencies in the pleadings would be more appropriately addressed at a later stage in the proceedings (for example, through a motion to dismiss). Although remand is not necessarily required, in this scenario the District Court finds that remand is appropriate out of regard for federal-state relations and wise judicial administration. Accordingly, because the District Court does not have equitable jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, there are no remaining claims that it can adjudicate. It therefore remands this matter back to state court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SwMGpf from PacerMonitor.com. BACIK COMPANY: Kowalczyk Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM KOWALCZYK, PIOTR JAROCKI and JAN SUCHODOLSKI on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BACIK COMPANY OF NY INC., SLAWOMIR GORECKI, and PETER MAJCHERCZYK, Case No. 2:25-cv-02831 (D.N.J., April 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. From the beginning of the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated employees’ employments until about Feb. 22, 2024, the Defendants engaged in a scheme where they neither paid Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated the minimum wage nor paid them for all hours they worked whether at the regular rate or the overtime rate. The Defendants allegedly never paid Plaintiffs Kowalczyk and Jarocki and all others similarly situated for overtime hours at the proper time and a half wage rate. The Defendants also never paid the Plaintiff Suchodolski and all other similarly situated drivers for all hours they worked. The Plaintiffs are all former employees of Bacik. Bacik is a wholesaler of meat, grocery, and dairy products imported from Poland, distributing its products throughout the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. The Individual Defendants are the owners, members, officers, and/or managers of Bacik.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 17 State Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Lift Stay on Connor Case ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to lift stay as to his individual action captioned as SHANE CONNOR, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00295-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.). The hearing set on April 25, 2025 shall be vacated. On March 4, 2022, the case was removed from state court. The complaint alleges Plaintiff was issued an account by BANA for the deposit of benefits from the California Employment Development Department. Because BANA failed to properly maintain Plaintiff's personal information regarding the account, unknown individuals accessed his account and personal information, and withdrew his funds. Even though Plaintiff disputed the unauthorized transactions, he claims that BANA did not conduct a reasonable investigation and did not refund the funds taken from his account, and as a result, he was unable to afford items he needed to buy. Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the California Customer Records Act under Cal. Civil Code section 1798.80 et seq., California Consumer Privacy Act pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100 et seq., California Unfair Competition Law pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. On the same day when the case was removed, BANA filed a notice of related case with a multidistrict litigation involving similar issues in In re Bank of Amer. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig., 21-MD-2992-LAB-MSB ("MDL"). On March 10, 2022, the case was transferred pursuant to the Low Number Rule and it became a member case of the MDL. On March 11, 2022, the Court sua sponte stayed the case pending resolution of the related MDL case concluding, "on a party's motion after the stay is lifted, the Court will consider applying its rulings in that multidistrict litigation to this action via nonmutual collateral estoppel or any other applicable theory." On April 8, 2024, the case was transferred to Judge Curiel. The MDL case arises from Class Action Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs' claims against BANA for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and related causes of action during its administration of the electronic benefits payment system for California's EDD during the COVID-19 pandemic. When new individual plaintiffs began filing complaints with similar causes of action arising from the same underlying factual allegations against BANA, the Court stayed them pending resolution of the MDL case. Further, on Sept. 17, 2024, litigation of the Individual Plaintiffs in the master consolidated complaint was stayed until a ruling on the class certification motion. Class Plaintiffs and BANA have been actively engaged in discovery since May 2023. Fact discovery has closed and the parties are currently engaged in expert discovery which is set to close on May 16, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted BANA's motion to stay the case pending the Supreme Court review of Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-0304, which will address issues affecting the class certification in this case. A ruling is expected at the end of June 2025. However, in that order, the Court denied the motion to stay as to the deadline to complete expert discovery and issues related to expert discovery. Plaintiff argues he will be prejudiced and suffer undue hardship because the case has been delayed for almost three years so he has not been able to pursue his individual claims, has not had access to the funds wrongfully taken from his bank account, and the continued delay has created an undue hardship. BANA responds that the stay will not result in undue hardship to Plaintiff because passage of time does not justify a change in the status quo. Instead, BANA contends that it would suffer undue hardship if a stay were lifted because it would be required to engage in unnecessary costs, time and effort in discovery and motion practice that will likely be duplicative and "legally barred" due to the matters currently being considered in the MDL. Plaintiff's stated reasons to lift the stay are not persuasive because delay in receiving damages does not support a stay. Moreover, even if delay in damages supported a stay, Plaintiff has not articulated facts to support his undue hardship by stating how much was taken from his account and what specific hardships he has endured due to the lack of these funds. Conversely, if the stay were lifted, BANA will be forced to engage in discovery and substantive briefing which may likely be duplicative and may even be unnecessary if barred by "nonmutual collateral estoppel or any other applicable theory." Thus, the Court finds that the prejudice weighs in favor of BANA. The Court recognizes the delay in this case and has indicated it seeks to move this case forward in a prompt and expeditious manner. Judge Curiel says, "If the stay were lifted, it would open the door for all plaintiffs in member cases to file motions to lift the stay in their cases. This would undermine the judicial economy and orderly course of justice that was intended by the initial stay. Therefore, judicial economy and the orderly course of justice still supports a stay." Ultimately, Plaintiff has not articulated any change in circumstances to justify lifting the stay. After considering the competing interests, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to lift the stay. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jLofiO from PacerMonitor.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Court Won't Lift Stay on Delapaz Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to lift stay as to his individual action captioned as MICHAEL DELAPAZ, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01660-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.). The hearing set on April 25, 2025 shall be vacated. On Sept. 21, 2021, the case was removed from state court. Plaintiff alleges he was issued an account from BANA for the deposit of benefits from the California Employment Development Department Because BANA failed to properly maintain Plaintiff's personal information regarding the account, unknown individuals accessed his account and personal information, and withdrew his funds from ah ATM machine. Even though Plaintiff disputed the unauthorized transaction with BANA and reported it to the police, he claims that BANA did not conduct a reasonable investigation, did not refund the funds taken from his account, and as a result, he was unable to afford items he needed to buy. Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the California Customer Records Act under Cal. Civil Code section 1798.80 et seq., the California Consumer Privacy Act pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 1798.100 et seq., the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693 et seq., and negligence. On the same day when the case was removed, BANA filed a notice of related case with a multidistrict litigation involving similar issues in In re Bank of Amer. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig., 21-MD-2992-LAB-MSB ("MDL"). On Oct. 4, 2021, the case was transferred pursuant to the Low Number Rule and it became a member case of 21-MD-2992-LAB-MSB. On Oct. 14, 2021, the Court sua sponte stayed the case pending resolution of the related MDL case concluding, "on a party's motion after the stay is lifted, the Court will consider applying its rulings in that multidistrict litigation to this action via nonmutual collateral estoppel or any other applicable theory." On April 8, 2024, the case was transferred to the Judge Curiel. The MDL case arises from Class Action Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs' claims against BANA for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and related causes of action during its administration of the electronic benefits payment system for California's EDD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early on in the MDL proceedings, the Court held a case management conference on July 19, 2021 to address the organizational structure and administrative process of managing the MDL. In the Court's order following the case management conference, the Court set dates for the Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the consolidated pleading to proceed and stayed any member cases1 that were not included in the consolidated pleading. When new individual plaintiffs began filing complaints with similar causes of action arising from the same underlying factual allegations against BANA, the Court stayed them pending resolution of the MDL case. Further, on September 17, 2024, litigation of the Individual Plaintiffs in the master consolidated complaint was stayed until a ruling on the class certification motion. Class Plaintiffs and BANA have been actively engaged in discovery since May 2023. Fact discovery has closed and the parties are currently engaged in expert discovery which is set to close on May 16, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Court granted Defendant's motion to stay the case pending the Supreme Court review of Lab'y Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-0304, which will address issues affecting the class certification in this case. (Dkt. No. 448.) A ruling is expected at the end of June 2025. However, in that order, the Court denied the motion to stay as to the deadline to complete expert discovery and issues related to expert discovery. Plaintiff argues he will be prejudiced and suffer undue hardship because the case has been delayed for almost three years, so he has not been able to pursue his individual claims, has not had access to the funds wrongfully taken from his bank account, and the continued delay has created an undue hardship. BANA responds that the stay will not result in undue hardship to Plaintiff because passage of time does not justify a change in the status quo. Instead, BANA contends that it would suffer undue hardship if a stay were lifted because it would be required to engage in unnecessary costs, time and effort in discovery and motion practice that will likely be duplicative and be "legally barred" due to the matters currently being considered in the MDL. The Court finds Plaintiff's conclusory claims he has suffered "undue hardship" in not having access to his stolen funds do not support a stay. Even if a delay in damages supported a stay, Plaintiff fails to provide any facts as to how much was taken from his BANA account and what specific hardships he has endured due to the lack of these funds. In contravention, BANA provides evidence that Plaintiff received payment for his two claims of unauthorized transactions in the amount of $527.78 which included interest and additional compensation in January/February 2024. Plaintiff does not provide any contrary evidence to dispute BANA's evidence that he was paid the amounts that were taken from him, and merely repeats that he has not had access to his funds. Conversely, if the stay were lifted, BANA will be forced to engage in discovery and substantive briefing which may likely be duplicative and may even be unnecessary if barred by "nonmutual collateral estoppel or any other applicable theory." Thus, the Court finds that the prejudice weighs in favor of BANA. The Court recognizes the delay in this case and has indicated it seeks to move this case forward in a prompt and expeditious manner. Judge Curiel says, "If the stay were lifted, it would open the door for all plaintiffs in member cases to file motions to lift the stay in their cases. This would undermine the judicial economy and orderly course of justice that was intended by the initial stay. Therefore, judicial economy and the orderly course of justice still supports a stay. Ultimately, Plaintiff has not articulated any change in circumstances to justify lifting the stay. After considering the competing interests, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to lift the stay. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qFPCBz from PacerMonitor.com. BINANCE HOLDINGS: Ontario Court Certifies Crypto Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dalton W. McGrath, writing for Blakes, reports that in its recent decision in Lochan v. Binance Holdings Limited, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the certification of a class action brought on behalf of Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency products (Decision). It is alleged that certain cryptocurrency trading companies traded in securities without registering and distributed securities without complying with applicable prospectus requirements, in violation of the Ontario Securities Act and various other Canadian securities law (Claim). A lower court found that the Claim satisfied the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act in Ontario and certified the proceeding as a class action. In upholding the certification, the Court of Appeal found that the Claim sufficiently pleaded common law and statutory causes of action. The Court of Appeal also confirmed that the Claim raises common issues, as required by the Class Proceedings Act. The Decision provides guidance to investors and advisors and identifies some of the legal risks associated with the purchase and sale of crypto assets and related derivatives. The Decision is part of a long-running series of decisions involving the parties. An earlier Ontario Court of Appeal decision which set aside an arbitration agreement between the parties as void was previously discussed in our November 2024 Blakes Bulletin: Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms Crypto Company's Arbitration Agreement Void. Background Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Canada Capital Markets Inc. and Binance Canada Holdings Ltd. (collectively, Binance), a Cayman Islands corporation, operated a retail cryptocurrency exchange in Canada involving three types of cryptocurrency -- futures contracts, options contracts and leveraged tokens. Binance did not register with the Ontario Securities Commission to engage in the business of trading in securities, nor did it file or deliver a prospectus to purchasers of cryptocurrency derivatives sold by Binance on its website. The Claim pleads that prospectus requirements are fundamental to Canadian securities law since they ensure that investors are provided with full, true and plain disclosure of all material facts relating to the securities being offered. The Claim further alleges that Binance illegally sold securities to members of the class action. Specifically, the Claim asserts that the sale of cryptocurrency derivatives constituted distribution of securities to Canadian investors without a prospectus, contrary to Canadian securities law. The Claim also alleges that Binance actively, intentionally and fraudulently concealed the fact that it was illegally trading in securities in Canada. The Claim seeks a remedy of rescission or damages in respect of the alleged breaches. The lower court certified the proceeding as a class action noting that, among other things, the legal test in respect of the "cause of action" requirement under the Class Proceedings Act is "identical" to the test for striking a statement of claim under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e., whether it is "plain and obvious" that the statement of claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action). The lower court found that the Claim had little difficulty in satisfying the cause of action requirement. The lower court found that, taking the pleaded facts to be true, it was not plain and obvious that the Claim fails to disclose a recognizable cause of action. On appeal, Binance argued that the lower court erred in finding that the Claim pleaded a reasonable cause of action and that the Claim raised common issues under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act. The Decision The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the certification of the Claim as a class proceeding. The Court of Appeal found that the Claim sufficiently pleaded both statutory and common law causes of action. Turning to the statutory cause of action, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the prospectus requirements in the Ontario Securities Act are fundamental to achieving the objects of the statute. In particular, the importance of the requirement to file a prospectus is aimed at protecting the general public. The Court of Appeal underscored the importance of prospectus requirements in relation to cryptocurrency products. As a result, the Court of Appeal found that the claimed breaches of statutory requirements for a prospectus were a properly pleaded cause of action. The Court of Appeal also found that the claimed common law causes of action were proper. In particular, the Court found that the failure to file a prospectus may violate the common law right of purchasers to set aside a transaction for illegality. Finally, the Court of Appeal held that Binance had not identified any palpable and overriding error in the lower court's conclusion that there was some basis in fact for the respondents' position that the class members contracted with Binance, rather than each other. Accordingly, the court found that remedial issues could be answered on a class-wide basis. As a result, the Claim raised common issues as required under the Class Proceedings Act. Conclusion Crypto assets are a burgeoning sector of the worldwide economy. Canadian courts are just beginning to grapple with the issues raised by crypto products. In this Decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the purchase of cryptocurrencies from an exchange may constitute a derivative (i.e., a financial instrument whose value is derived from or based on an underlying interest or asset). In addition, the Decision provides guidance on when investors can seek potential legal remedies relating to the purchase of crypto assets in circumstances where there is no prospectus. [GN] BRAND EVANGELISTS: Jackson Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BRAND EVANGELISTS FOR BEAUTY INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02883 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, www.theinkeylist.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant offers the commercial website, /www.theinkeylist.com, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BRIDGE INVESTMENT: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Apollo --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Bridge Investment Group Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BRDG), relating to the proposed merger with Apollo. Under the terms of the agreement, Bridge stockholders and Bridge OpCo unitholders will receive 0.07081 shares of Apollo stock for each share of Bridge Class A common stock and each Bridge OpCo Class A common unit, respectively. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/bridge-investment-group-holdings-inc-brdg/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Akoya Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKYA), relating to the proposed merger with Quanterix. Under the terms of the agreement, Akoya shareholders will receive 0.318 shares of Quanterix common stock for each share of Akoya common stock owned. Akoya shareholders will own approximately 30% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 13, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/akoya-biosciences-inc-akya/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CKPT), relating to the proposed merger with Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, Checkpoint stockholders will receive, for each share of common stock they hold, a cash payment of $4.10, and a non-transferable contingent value right entitling the stockholder to receive up to $0.70 in cash. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/checkpoint-therapeutics-inc-ckpt/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Quanterix Corporation (NASDAQ: QTRX), relating to the proposed merger with Akoya Biosciences. Under the terms of the agreement, Akoya shareholders will be given 0.318 shares of Quanterix common stock for each share of Akoya common stock owned. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 13, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/quanterix-corporation-qtrx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CARE AND DEVELOPMENT: Court Denies Bid to Certify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's motion to certify a collective in the lawsuit styled SARNITRA VALDERY-HUGHES v. CARE AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01708-LMA-MBN (E.D. La.). Before the Court is a motion to certify a proposed collective action filed by Plaintiff Sarnitra Valdery-Hughes. Defendants Care and Development Center, Inc. ("CDC"), and Gilbert Charles filed a response in opposition. The Plaintiff filed a reply. The lawsuit concerns the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Section 216(b) of the FLSA permits employees to maintain an action against their employer for violating the FLSA on behalf of themselves and those "similarly situated." An action maintained by employees on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated is referred to as a "collective action." The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit by filing what she entitled a "collective action complaint." The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate a business providing services to persons needing home care. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated allegedly worked as home care givers, or "direct service workers" ("DSWs"). With respect to the Plaintiff in particular, she states that she worked for the Defendants approximately between 2020 and 2023 at an hourly rate of $10.00 per hour. She alleges that she would work in excess of 40 hours per week but was not paid overtime as required by the FLSA. She estimates that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other DSWs, who worked more than 40 hours per week but were denied overtime. The Plaintiff, thus, brings this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) on behalf of DSWs who, since December 2020, have not been paid overtime notwithstanding working more than 40 hours in a week. She claims that the Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA by implementing a management policy, plan or decision that intentionally provided for the compensation of DSWs as if they were exempt from coverage under the FLSA, disregarding the fact that they were not exempt. In her complaint, the Plaintiff requests several forms of relief. She seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the Defendants have violated the FLSA, (2) an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from paying DSWs as though they were independent contractors, (3) unpaid overtime, (4) liquidated damages, and (5) reasonable attorney's fees. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to certify a collective-action class and facilitate notice to all prospective class members. Her motion explains that CDC is paid by Medicaid for providing home care for people struggling with physical infirmities and disabilities. Essentially, the Plaintiff contends that CDC contracts with the State of Louisiana to serve as a covered provider. In turn, CDC hires DSWs to provide home care. Based on the corporate deposition of CDC in a legally-related matter, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants classify all DSWs as independent contractors, for which reason they were not entitled to overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA. While working as a DSW for CDC, the Plaintiff states that she herself was classified as an independent contractor or "1099 worker." In light of the information obtained at the corporate deposition, she asserts that the Defendants applied this policy of classifying DSWs as independent contractors to more than 100 DSWs during the period of 2021 to present. The Plaintiff defines the prospective collective-action class as: "[a]ll persons who worked for [CDC] as a [DSW] from 2022 to the present who worked more than 40 hours a week, but were not paid for all of the overtime that they worked due to [d]efendants' policy of classifying them as independent contractors or "1099 employees" and not paying overtime on all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per any given 7-day work period." In her motion, the Plaintiff notes that one prospective class member, Delicia Parker, has already decided to join this lawsuit. To facilitate notice to other prospective class members, the Plaintiff requests that this Court approve her proposed notice forms and her proposed plan for their distribution. After considering the available evidence and the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that this lawsuit is not the rare misclassification case that may be resolved on a collective basis. For the Plaintiff to satisfy her burden to show that this case may be resolved on a collective basis, Judge Africk says the Plaintiff must show how the policies that it highlights would allow for the near uniform application of the economic-realities test to each of the proposed class members. At bottom, Judge Africk explains, the Plaintiff's argument rests on the contention that the Defendants treat all DSWs in the same manner. But the relevant question here focuses on the similarity in the economic realities of the DSWs rather than how they were treated. Judge Africk finds the Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the cited policies and procedures constrained the economic reality of each DSW in a sufficiently similar way to warrant this case proceeding as a collective action. Even if the Court were to ignore the dispute between the parties regarding the documentation cited by the Plaintiff and attribute that documentation to the Defendants, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden because the evidence she cites does not demonstrate that the several factors of the economic-realities test could be applied on a class-wide basis. Judge Africk opines, among other things, that the Plaintiff cites no evidence regarding the relative investments of the workers of the alleged employer, no evidence regarding the skill and initiative required in performing the job, and no evidence regarding the permanency of the relationship between the worker and alleged employer. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated whether DSWs have costs and, if so, whether the ability to control costs is similar for all DSWs. Altogether, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the DSWs are similarly situated with respect to the employer-relationship element of their FLSA claim. In addition, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate for this case to proceed as a collective action because of the individualized defenses available to the Defendants. For these reasons, the Court rules that Plaintiff Sarnitra Valdery-Hughes's motion certify a collective action and facilitate notice to prospective class members is denied as the Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that the prospective class members are similarly situated. The Plaintiff's request for oral argument is also denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/3y2zzn33 from PacerMonitor.com. CHINTU PATEL: Killion's Motion to File Amended Complaint Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark J. Dinsmore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted the plaintiff's third motion to file amended complaint in the case captioned as DYLAN KILLION, Plaintiff, v. CHINTU PATEL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00337-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind.). Plaintiff in this case worked at three Subway restaurants that were owned by limited liability companies that were in turn owned by Chintu Patel. He asserts claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statue, alleging that he was not paid in accordance with those statutes. He has sued Mr. Patel, Mr. Patel's wife, Jigna Patel, the three limited liability companies that owned the restaurants at which he worked -- Subin 28, LLC, Subin 26, LLC, and Subin 34, LLC ("the Killion LLCs) -- and 35 other limited liability companies that own Subway restaurants and are owned by Mr. Patel ("the Other LLCs").He brings this case as a collective action pursuant to the FLSA on behalf of a class consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were employed as non-exempt employees of the Subways owned and managed by Mr. Patel and, as to the state law claim, as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of a class consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were employed as employees of the Subways owned and managed by Mr. Patel. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the claims against all of the Defendants except the Killion LLCs for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, as relevant to the instant motion, Defendants argue the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the Other LLCs because he was only employed by the Killion LLCs. While Plaintiff has not yet filed a response to the motion to dismiss, it is anticipated that he will argue that he has standing to sue the Other LLCs based on the single employer doctrine. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint for two reasons. First, he wishes to add opt-in plaintiff and putative class member Angel Ray as an additional named plaintiff. Second, he wishes to add two new defendants, JBMEnterprise, LLC and SubInky, LLC. Plaintiff recognizes that applicable standard and argues that there is good cause to permit the amendment because Plaintiff acted diligently to seek the amendment after he learned of the existence of the proposed new defendants, JBMEnterprise, LLC and SubInky, LLC. The Court, in its discretion, finds that Plaintiff's counsel was sufficiently diligent in pursuing discovery in this case such that his failure to discover JBMEnterprise, LLC, and SubInky, LLC, as potential defendants in this case sooner was not due to a lack of diligence. Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has not explained why he did not seek to add Angel Ray as a named plaintiff sooner; she opted-in to this case on June 24, 2024, and has assisted in the prosecution of this matter since opting-in. However, given that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to permit amendment of the complaint to add JBMEnterprise, LLC, and SubInky, LLC, the Court, in its discretion, will permit Plaintiff's entire proposed amendment, as the delay in Ms. Ray becoming a named Plaintiff has not caused Defendants any prejudice. That and the fact that denying Ms. Ray named plaintiff status in this case may well lead to her filing a separate case mean that the interests of judicial economy are best served by simply the Court, in its discretion, granting the motion to amend in its entirety. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTpc0F CHRISTIE'S INC: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Christie's has agreed to pay a $990,000 settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged the auction house was liable for a May 2024 data breach. The court-approved website for the Christie's class action lawsuit settlement can be found at ChristiesDataSettlement.com. Class members covered by the settlement include all United States residents whose private information was compromised as a result of the Christie's data breach and who were sent notification of the incident. According to the settlement website, the deal covers approximately 45,798 people. The Christie's settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in February 2025. If the settlement is granted final approval at a hearing on July 22 of this year, each class member who filed a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro-rated cash payment. Christie's settlement payouts are estimated to be $100 per person, although this amount may increase or decrease depending on how many valid claims are submitted, the settlement site says. Eligible individuals can also receive up to $10,000 for documented losses traceable to the Christie's data breach and incurred between May 8, 2024 and June 19, 2025. In addition, Christie's settlement class members can submit a claim for two years of credit monitoring and identity restoration services. Class members who lived in California between May 8, 2024 and June 19, 2025 can file a claim form for an additional payment of up to $100. This extra payment may decrease on a pro-rata basis and will account for potential statutory claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act, court documents share. You can submit a Christie's claim form online by clicking here. You'll be asked to enter the settlement claim ID found in the settlement notice you may have received. You can also download a claim form to fill out and send in by mail. Claim forms must be filed online or postmarked by June 19, 2025. Settlement benefits and cash payments will be sent to claimants only after the settlement receives final approval from the court and any appeals are resolved. One of the initial class action lawsuits against Christie's claimed that an unauthorized party was able to hack into the defendant's computer network and steal customer data due to cybersecurity failures. Information compromised in the Christie's May 2024 data breach included names, dates of birth, addresses, nationalities, passport numbers and more, the settlement website says. As part of the settlement, Christie's has also agreed to implement data security enhancements, including defensive tools and increased monitoring. [GN] CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Dismisses Tithing Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Semerad, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a sweeping lawsuit involving potentially billions of dollars in tithing donated by millions of members to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been tossed out of federal court. In the second ruling of its kind this year, a U.S. District Court in Utah on Thursday, April 17, dismissed a brewing class-action suit that had accused the global faith and its investment company of fraud involving religious donations and how members' cash was invested and spent. Sidestepping a host of controversial issues related to church autonomy and the First Amendment, federal Judge Robert Shelby ruled that the suit brought by nine current and former Latter-day Saints in six states should be dismissed because it was incompletely argued and filed too late. In fact, Shelby wrote, judicial canon required him to focus on "nonconstitutional failures" in the would-be class-action suit — before touching on any of its hard-fought questions involving the law and how the church governs its financial affairs. On April 17, church spokesperson Sam Penrod praised the decision, saying "the legal claims brought against the church were rightfully dismissed by the court." "Tithing donations made by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are an expression of faith and allow the church to fulfill its divine mission," he said in a statement. "These donations are carefully used and wisely managed, under the direction of senior church leaders." The role of an IRS whistleblower Shelby's 44-page decision dismissed the legal action against the church and its investment arm, Salt Lake City-based Ensign Peak Advisors, with prejudice, meaning it cannot be amended and refiled. Plaintiffs had accused the church of piling up vast market returns in a "slush fund" at Ensign Peak over several decades, without spending a penny from the reserve account on charity. At the same time, they alleged, church leaders diverted billions of dollars to prop up an ailing insurance company, Beneficial Life, and help build and develop the City Creek Center mall in downtown Salt Lake City. The plaintiffs had also urged Shelby to declare the church's financial practices illegal and freeze tithing altogether, while accountants sorted through the faith's finances or the court appointed a special monitor. But the ruling hinged "first and foremost," Shelby wrote, on a statute of limitations provision that meant the plaintiffs from across the country had filed too late. [GN] CONNECTICUT: All Plaintiffs Nixed Except Coleman in Suit v. Semple ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut drops all Plaintiffs except Dhati Coleman from the lawsuit captioned DHATI COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00464-SRU (D. Conn.). This ruling addresses a pro se civil rights action brought by 12 incarcerated Plaintiffs. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court severs the action and drops all Plaintiffs from the case other than Dhati Coleman. The present action arises from a class decertification in Toliver v. Semple, 3:16-cv-1899 (SRU). Toliver was bought by incarcerated individuals at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. The Plaintiffs brought Eighth Amendment claims challenging the conditions of their confinement at Osborn. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged they were exposed to hazardous levels of PCBs, friable asbestos, and contaminated water. On Nov. 17, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle, and thereafter jointly moved to decertify the class. On March 6, 2023, Judge Underhill provided notice to potential class members of the Court's intent to decertify the class and notified them to file individual actions "on or before April 1, 2024, or risk being barred by the statute of limitations." The notice was posted in several locations, including "on the Department of Correction's website" and "in the housing units at Department of Correction facilities." On March 25, 2024, Judge Underhill granted the parties' motion to decertify the class. Decertification caused a flood of new pro se civil rights actions related to conditions of confinement at Osborn. One was brought by Dhati Coleman. Coleman filed the present action with eleven co-plaintiffs. He brought Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims alleging that unsafe conditions of confinement at Osborn were caused by friable asbestos and hazardous PCB levels in water. As set forth in this Order, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Court severs this action and drops all Plaintiffs other than Coleman. Judge Underhill explains that first, it appears that there are factual circumstances unique to each Plaintiff warranting severance. The Plaintiffs share common questions of law insofar as they bring the same claims against the same Defendants. However, each Plaintiff's date and length of incarceration in Osborn differs. Judge Underhill anticipates that factual circumstances unique to each Plaintiff may render joinder impracticable because of the number of Plaintiffs. Second, Judge Underhill says, the practical realities of managing pro se litigation involving multiple incarcerated plaintiffs militate against adjudicating their claims in one action. Pleadings and written motions must be personally signed by each pro se party. Thus, the 12 Plaintiffs must personally sign every document filed with the Court. Prison, however, introduces practical barriers to the kind of collaboration that 12 pro se plaintiffs need to effectively litigate a case. Third, Judge Underhill points out that this action appears to be structured like a class action. Judge Underhill explains that it is procedurally improper for pro se parties to bring a class action. Coleman appears to be assuming the role of a lead Plaintiff, but as a pro se Plaintiff, Judge Underhill maintains that he cannot represent other Plaintiffs' interests. Severance is, therefore, necessary to protect each individual Plaintiff's right to represent his own interests. For these reasons, and pursuant to Rule 21, Judge Underhill severs this action and drops all Plaintiffs other than Coleman from the action. Coleman will be the sole Plaintiff, who proceeds under this case caption. If the 11 other Plaintiffs wish to proceed, they must file new, individual complaints on behalf of themselves personally within the next 30 days, by May 9, 2025. Judge Underhill observes that it does not appear that Coleman or any of the other Plaintiffs have paid the filing fee in this case. Coleman must pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days, by May 9, 2025. If the other Plaintiffs file new complaints, they must each file their own individual motions to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/54t59266 from PacerMonitor.com. CPS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Washburn Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- RONDA WASHBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00400-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2025) is an action rising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information (together, "Private Information") of its clients' patients. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of its clients' patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their full name, date of birth, address, health insurance information, such as member/group ID number or Medicaid/Medicare number, medical information, such as medical record number, clinical information, provider information, diagnosis or treatment information, or prescription information such as medication name, and Social Security numbers. The Defendant's failure to protect Patients' Private Information has harmed and will continue to harm Patients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. CPS SOLUTIONS LLC was founded in 2017. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of miscellaneous industrial supplies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CROSSROADS TRADING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SEDRE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSSROADS TRADING CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03332 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information and protected health information, from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Crossroads Trading Co., Inc. is engaged in buying, selling, and consigning name brand and designer clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave. Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com DX ENTERPRISES: Settlement in McClaine Suit Obtains Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as HEATHER MCCLAINE, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. DX ENTERPRISES, INC. f/k/a DX ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a DXE, d/b/a GCQA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01168-DWD (S.D. Ill.). The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement by Preliminary Approval Order dated Jan. 7, 2025. At that time, the Court preliminarily certified a settlement class of the following individuals: All individuals whose biometric identifiers or biometric information were collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained and/or stored by DX Enterprises, Inc. in Illinois during the period from Feb. 27, 2018 through Jan. 7, 2025. The Settlement Class includes 586 members, including a subclass of 86 members who were rehired by Defendant during the Class Period. With respect to the Settlement Class, the Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that: (a) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class, and those common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; (c) the Class Representative and Class Counsel (The Garfinkel Group, LLC) have fairly and adequately protected, and will continue to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (d) certification of the Settlement Class is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The Court finds that the Settlement Class Members are readily ascertainable based on Defendant's records and the Court's review of the Settlement Administrator's declaration regarding the notice process, which successfully reached the vast majority of the 586 class members, with only 46 notices ultimately undeliverable after skip-tracing efforts. Based on the papers filed with the Court and the presentations made at the Final Approval Hearing on March 26, 2025, at which time all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to be heard in support of and in opposition to the Settlement, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and was entered into in good faith. The settlement is in the best interests of the Settlement Class considering the complexity of the litigation, the significant risks of continued litigation, and the likely duration of further litigation. The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement was reached after extensive arms-length negotiations between Oct. 5, 2023 and March 5, 2024, which continued into September 2024, and conducted by experienced counsel who were thoroughly familiar with the legal and factual issues of this case. The Court finds that the consideration to be paid to Settlement Class Members, consisting of a total Settlement Fund of $1,519,796.84 (including $1,432,617.64 for the Class Fund providing $2,444.74 per member, and $87,179.20 for the Subclass Fund), is reasonable and adequate. This finding is supported by, among other things: the immediate benefits to the Settlement Class Members; the fact that only two class members opted out and no objections were filed; and the effectiveness of the notice program in reaching the vast majority of class members. The complex legal and factual posture of the Action, including multiple BIPA violation claims, and the fact that the Settlement Agreement resulted from extensive negotiations between experienced counsel, further support this finding. The Court confirms the appointment of Heather McClaine as Class Representative of the Settlement Class. It finds that Ms. McClaine has adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class throughout this litigation and settlement process. The Court confirms the appointment of The Garfinkel Group, LLC, as Class Counsel. It finds that Class Counsel, particularly through the representation of Max Barack, has demonstrated extensive experience in class action litigation and has vigorously and competently represented the Settlement Class throughout this litigation. The Court finds that both the Class Representative and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class throughout the litigation and settlement negotiations, which took place from Oct. 5, 2023 through March 5, 2024, and will continue to do so through the settlement implementation process. The Court orders the Parties to perform their obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The parties and Settlement Class Members are bound by the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Administrator, Simpluris, shall distribute the Settlement Fund as follows: a) Attorney's fees in the amount of $532,929.89 (35% of the Settlement Fund) and litigation costs of $666.97 shall be paid to Class Counsel within twenty-one (21) days of the Effective Date; b) The Class Representative service award of $15,000 shall be paid to Heather McClaine within twenty-one (21) days of the Effective Date; c) Settlement administration costs, not to exceed $15,000, shall be paid to Simpluris; d) Individual settlement payments from the Class Fund ($1,432,617.64) shall be distributed to Settlement Class Members in the amount of $2,444.74 per member, and payments from the Subclass Fund ($87,179.20) shall be distributed to eligible Subclass Members, within fourteen (14) days of the Effective Date. The Court dismisses the Action with prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided herein and in the Settlement Agreement). Upon the Effective Date and in consideration of the payment of the Settlement Fund and the releases, agreement, and covenants contained in the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class Members who did not opt out shall release, relinquish, and give up any and all potential, filed, unfiled, known or unknown claims, suits, actions, controversies, demands, and/or causes of action arising out of or related to the allegations set forth in the pleadings in this Action, including those arising under the BIPA and any similar law that were brought or could have been brought in the Action. The Court finally approves the Release of Claims provided in the Settlement Agreement. Upon the Effective Date, the Releasors shall be deemed to have released, and by operation of this Final Approval Order shall have fully, finally, and forever released, acquitted, relinquished, and completely discharged any and all released claims against the Released Parties. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZoF24J from PacerMonitor.com. E.L.F. BEAUTY: Faces Boston Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E.L.F. BEAUTY, INC., TARANG P. AMIN, and MANDY J. FIELDS, Case No. 3:25-cv-03167 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of a "Class" of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ELF securities between May 25, 2023, and February 6, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although ELF began with an initial focus on direct-to-consumer e-commerce, which allowed it to build a strong customer database and social networking site with over two million members, the Company now employs a retail distribution strategy aimed at offering ELF products wherever consumers shop for beauty products. The Company's retail partners, including Target, Walmart, and Ulta Beauty, accounted for roughly 75 percent of ELF’s sales revenue throughout the Class Period. By mid-2023, ELF began to experience slowing consumer demand trends for its products as its inventory levels jumped in the fiscal quarters that followed. In order to conceal slowing consumer demand from investors, ELF attributed the rapid increase in the value of its inventory to accounting modifications resulting from changes in shipping logistics, and to planned efforts "to support the strong consumer demand we’re seeing." The Defendants continued to tout ELF's "strong consumer demand," while assuring investors that the Company had “really great visibility to our business." The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that declining consumer demand trends were negatively impacting the Company's business. On Aug. 9, 2024, investors began to learn the truth about the slowing consumer demand for ELF products when the Company released its fiscal Q1 20241 results and provided its outlook for fiscal Q2 2024. Specifically, ELF issued meaningfully weaker-than-anticipated guidance for fiscal Q2 2024 and acknowledged downward pressure on its adjusted EBITDA guidance, approximately $30 million lower than expected by analysts, signaling a sequential slowdown in growth. On this news, ELF's stock price fell $27.12 per share, or 14.4 percent, to close at $160.83 per share on August 9, 2024. 7. Then, on November 20, 2024, Muddy Waters Research published a report accusing ELF of revenue fraud and raising concerns about the Company's inventory management practices. Specifically, the Muddy Waters Report alleged that ELF overstated its revenue by $135 million to $190 million during the Class Period. The Muddy Waters Report further accused ELF of concealing declining customer demand from investors by falsely attributing the rising value of its inventory to a supposed change in its practice of taking ownership of inventory upon arrival at distribution centers in the United States instead of in China when the products ship. Following publication of the Muddy Waters Report, ELF’s stock price fell $2.71 per share, or 2.2 percent, to close at $119.00 per share on November 20, 2024. 1 ELF's fiscal year ends on March 31st and its fiscal Q1 2024 ran from April 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023. Finally, on Feb. 6, 2025, ELF released its fiscal Q3 2024 results and reduced its financial outlook for the first time since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. ELF lowered its revenue and adjusted EBITDA guidance for fiscal 2025. Management explained that these downward revisions reflected lower demand trends, challenging category conditions, and slower-than-expected new product performance. On this news, ELF's stock price fell $17.36 per share, or 19.6 percent, to close at $71.13 per share on February 7, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Founded in 2004, ELF is an Oakland, California-based multi-brand beauty company that offers low-cost cosmetics and skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com EISNER ADVISORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Watzka Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- HANNAH WATZKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EISNER ADVISORY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03081 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information and protected health information, from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. Eisner Advisory Group LLC operates as a financial advisory service. The Company offers advisory, accounting, outsourcing and tax. Eisner Advisory Group serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com EISNER ADVISORY: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Martson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Marston, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eisner Advisory Group, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-01568-JMB-ECW (D. Minn., April 17, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients. As part of its financial services, Eisner collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal and private information belonging to its clients, including, but not limited to: Social Security numbers, full names, driver’s license or state identification information, financial account information, dates of birth, health insurance information, and medical information. Between September 4 and September 9, 2023, Eisner experienced a data breach incident (the "Data Breach") in which an unauthorized third-party accessed its network environment. Subsequently, Eisner determined that the unauthorized third-party was able to remove Private Information from its network. Upon information and belief, over 84,795 people were affected by the Data Breach. On April 8, 2025, years after the Data Breach, Eisner issued data breach notices to individuals whose information was believed to have been accessed in this incident, including the Plaintiff’s and Class members' Private Information. The Plaintiff received a data breach notice letter dated April 8, 2025, informing him that his Private Information, such as his name and Social Security number had been impacted by the Data Breach. Eisner, a global business consulting firm, is an alternative practice structure that provides business advisory and non-attest services to businesses across a wide range of industries. Eisner and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PLLC 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com ENGEL & VOLKERS: Faces Lopez Suit Over Anticompetitive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEANDRO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. ENGEL & VOLKERS, ENGEL & VOLKERS AMERICAS, INC., LIVE & PLAY LLC D/B/A ENGEL & VOELKERS CHICAGO, JENNIFER AMES CHICAGO, INC., D/B/A AMES GROUP CHICAGO, SIDE, INC., THE KEYES COMPANY, and ILLUSTRATED PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04207 (April 17, 2025) is a lawsuit is brought against Defendants Engel & Volkers, Side, and Keyes -- each of which is among the largest residential real estate brokerages in the country by sales volume -- for engaging in and facilitating a conspiracy that has perpetuated anticompetitive measures in the real estate broker services market within Illinois and nationwide. The Defendants and their co-conspirators adopted and implemented anticompetitive practices that harmed consumers and homebuyers by, among other things, increasing and artificially sustaining the commissions paid to real estate brokers as part of residential real estate transactions. Because brokers' commissions are incorporated into the price of a home, the Defendants' anticompetitive practices have burdened homebuyers nationwide with increased home prices and unnecessarily high costs in residential real estate transactions. The Defendants and their co-conspirators are members of the National Association of Realtors (TM) (NAR), a national trade association that offers advantages to its members, including access to the primary Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) with detailed information on properties available for sale. The seller-broker lists the seller's property on an MLS, while the buyer-agent searches the MLS to find properties to propose to their buyer. The vast majority of residential real estate transactions are facilitated through listings made available on an MLS. The result is that the amounts of buyer-agents' commissions became artificially elevated, and this fact was opaque and ill-understood by the homebuyers whose home purchases funded those commissions. These anti-competitive rules have permitted Defendants and their co-conspirators to sustain buyer-agent fees at artificially high levels which would not exist in a competitive marketplace. The Defendants and their co-conspirators further protected and promoted their conspiracy by exerting control over and manipulating the MLSs, which act as the gateway to homebuying and selling. As set forth, NAR offers its members access to NAR MLSs that are widely used to facilitate homebuying and selling. The result of the conspiracy has been inflated buyer-agent commissions, higher average cost of homes, and lower quality services provided to homebuyers as a result of buyer agents who are incentivized to avoid lower commission properties and receive supracompetitive commissions regardless of their experience or the level of services they provide, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the other Class and Subclass members have suffered significant monetary damages, each incurring hundreds if not thousands of dollars in excess commissions, due to Defendants' participation and involvement in the conspiracy. The Defendants' and their co-conspirators' participation in the conspiracy has unreasonably restrained trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Illinois Antitrust Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the common law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class and Subclass members, brings suit against the Defendants and their co-conspirators for these violations, seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Defendant is a global real estate brokerage specializing in premium residential properties, with its corporate headquarters located in Hamburg, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Meyers, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. William Kingston, Esq. Colin Primo Buscarini, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com cbuscarini@mcgpc.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Ste. 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of Everus Construction Group, Inc. (NYSE: ECG). Shareholders who purchased shares of ECG during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. For more information, visit this link: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=143350&from=4 CLASS PERIOD: October 31, 2024 to February 11, 2025 ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's backlog conversion cycle had become elongated due to larger, more complex projects; (2) as a result, the Company's revenue recognition would be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. DEADLINE: June 3, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=143350&from=4 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of ECG during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 3, 2025. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] FAMILY CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stokes Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN STOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY CARE VISITING NURSE & HOME CARE AGENCY, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00584 (D. Conn., April 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Stokes was employed by the Defendants as a patient care employee. Family Care Visiting Nurse & Home Care Agency, L.L.C. provides home-based health care services, including skilled nursing, physical therapy, and home health aides. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.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 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com FEDERAL BUREAU: Court Tosses Bacote Lawsuit for Procedural Mootness ------------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed without prejudice the case captioned as MICHAEL BACOTE, JR., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03111-RM-NRN (D. Colo.) for procedural mootness. This matter is before the Court following remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiff, an inmate in Defendant's custody, has at least one serious mental illness and an intellectual developmental disability. When he filed this action, he was being held at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado ("ADXFlorence"). In his Fourth Amended Complaint, he challenged the conditions of his confinement, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on asserted violations of his rights under the First and Eighth Amendments and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This Court concluded that some of Plaintiff's claims were barred by the terms of a class action settlement involving mentally disabled prisoners at ADX-Florence. Others failed due to the absence of an implied right of action under the Rehabilitation Act and because Plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish the causation element of a First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court subsequently concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish elements of his remaining Eighth Amendment claim and directed that judgment be entered in Defendant's favor. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit determined that the issues raised by Plaintiff were prudentially moot because, since the filing of his Complaint, he had been transferred from ADX-Florence to the mental health unit at the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. In light of the Tenth Circuit's ruling, the Court finds that all Plaintiff's claims, which pertain solely to his conditions of confinement at ADX-Florence, are subject to dismissal without prejudice for procedural mootness. Therefore, the Court WITHDRAWS all Orders it previously entered in this case as well as the Final Judgment entered on Aug. 4, 2022. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=29CTbF from PacerMonitor.com. FEVID TRANSPORT: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue in Dees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret Strickland of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denies the Defendants' motion to transfer venue in the lawsuit entitled CHESTER DEES, MARCUS HUBBARD, WANDA JUNE KIRKPATRICK, and JIMMY SANTANA, Plaintiffs v. FEVID TRANSPORT, LLC, and SAND REVOLUTION II, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873-MIS-KK (D.N.M.). The matter is before the Court on the Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue filed by Defendants Fevid Transport, LLC, and Sand Revolution II, LLC, on Jan. 31, 2025. The Plaintiffs responded on Feb. 14, 2025 ("Response"), and the Defendants replied in support of their Motion on Feb. 28, 2025 ("Reply"). The Plaintiffs bring this putative class and collective action for damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), asserting the Defendants improperly classified them and others similarly situated as exempt employees and, thereby, failed to pay them overtime wages for work done in excess of forty (40) hours in each workweek. The Defendants are jointly owned and controlled entities, which provide frac sand logistics services to drillers in the Permian Basin under the name Sand Revolution. The Plaintiffs are former truck drivers for the Defendants, who allege that they, at the direction of the Defendants, regularly hauled deliveries into New Mexico over the last three years and were not compensated for hours worked more than 40 hours per week. Each named Plaintiff signed identical documents titled "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims," (collectively, the "Agreements"), as part of their employment onboarding with Defendant Fevid Transport, LLC. The Agreements contain a forum-selection clause that provides: "The venue of any Dispute and all matters relating, concerning, or affecting the arbitration, including, without limitation, such proceedings as identified or described in Article 8, shall be in Odessa, Texas." In their Motion, the Defendants set forth two grounds for the transfer of this case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Odessa-Midland Division, citing 28 U.S.C. Sections 1404(a) and 1406(a). With respect to Section 1406(a), the Defendants contend that the Agreements signed by the Plaintiffs contain mandatory forum-selection clauses "that provides for venue of this matter to be exclusively in Odessa, Texas." The Plaintiffs dispute the existence of an applicable mandatory forum-selection clause because the plain language of the Agreements provides that it applies only in the context of arbitration, which the Defendants do not seek to compel here. In the alternative, the Defendants assert that a transfer of this matter pursuant to Section 1404(a) promotes the interest of justice as it would be more convenient for the parties and any witnesses to have the matter heard in the Western District of Texas, Odessa-Midland. The Plaintiffs claim that, even if there is a mandatory forum-selection clause in the Agreements, the analysis for transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a) favors this case staying in the District of New Mexico. The Plaintiffs have asserted in their Complaint that venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Although the Defendants' principal places of business are in Midland, Texas, the Defendants do and have operated their businesses in New Mexico. The Plaintiffs allege they were deprived of overtime pay when they worked in New Mexico at the direction of the Defendants. Judge Strickland finds that the Defendants do not sufficiently challenge the propriety of venue sitting in this District in their Motion and because a forum-selection clause cannot be enforced through a Section 1406(a) motion, a transfer of this matter to another district court cannot occur when the case falls within one of the three categories set out in Section 1391(b). Because this case falls within Section 1391(b)(2), Judge Strickland holds that venue is proper in this District and a transfer of this matter under Section 1406(a) is denied. The Court also finds that under the plain language of the Agreements, lawsuits of this type are explicitly excepted from the Agreements' definition of "Dispute," and, therefore, the forum-selection clause the Defendants seek to enforce is not applicable to this case. Judge Strickland notes that the Plaintiffs, naturally, set forth an analysis that results in the contrary where this District retains this case. As detailed in this Order, this Court agrees with the Plaintiffs and denies the Defendants' Motion. Judge Strickland also finds, among other things, that the Defendants have not established that the Western District of Texas has a stronger interest in this litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4665n379 from PacerMonitor.com. FUNKO INC: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit for $14.75MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Funko Inc. agreed to a $14.75 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it misled investors about its financial health before an initial public offering. The Funko securities class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased Funko common stock through the company's IPO on Nov. 1, 2017. Funko is a pop culture collectibles company that sells products based on TV shows, movies and video games. The company went public in November 2017. According to a class action lawsuit, Funko misled investors about its financial health before its IPO. Specifically, Funko allegedly hid its reliance on "channel stuffing," a practice where a company ships more products to retailers than they can sell to inflate sales numbers. The Funko class action lawsuit claims the company's misleading statements caused its stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. When the truth about Funko's financial health was revealed, the company's stock price allegedly dropped, causing investors to suffer losses. Funko has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $14.75 million to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Funko securities settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of shares they purchased and sold during the class period. Class members who purchased shares in the IPO and sold them before June 30, 2018, can receive a payment based on the difference between the purchase price and the sales price. These payments will vary depending on the number of shares purchased and sold. Class members who purchased shares in the IPO and still hold them can receive a payment of up to $0.91 per share, depending on the number of shares held. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 16, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Funko class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for June 6, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 2, 2025. Who's Eligible All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Funko common stock in connection with Funko's IPO on Nov. 1, 2017. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued by Funko in connection with the IPO. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/02/2025 Case Name In re Funko Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-2-29838-7 SEA, in the Superior Court of Washington for King County Final Hearing 06/06/2025 Settlement Website FunkoSecuritiessettlement.com Claims Administrator A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173109 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@FunkoSecuritiesSettlement.com (877) 777-9555 Class Counsel Ellen Stewart ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Aaron Brody STULL, STULL & BRODY Defense Counsel Thomas Giblin LATHAM & WATKINS LLP [GN] GENWORTH LIFE: Kaplan Suit Removed from State Court to D.D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON R. KAPLAN and RICHARD A. KAPLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; AARP INC.; AARP SERVICES, INC.; AARP INSURANCE PLAN, Case No. 2025-CAB-000322 (Filed Jan. 17, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 2025. The Court Clerk for the District of Columbia assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01165 to the proceedings. The Kaplans assert claims on behalf of a putative class of more than 20,000 individuals throughout the United States who allegedly purchased Genworth's AARP-branded long term care insurance through group policies issued on insurance Form 7053. Based on the Kaplans' own allegations, the putative class exceeds 100 members, satisfying the first element for removal under CAFA. The Defendants provide life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos Llinas Negret, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: cllinas@nflawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Drew W. Marrocco, Esq. Cassandra Beckman Widay, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1120 Telephone: (202) 496-7500 Facsimile: (202) 496-7756 GIGA WATT: District Court Tosses Dam Appeal for Lack of Standing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants the motion to dismiss appeal for lack of appellate standing in the lawsuit entitled In re: GIGA WATT INC., Debtor. JUN DAM, Appellant v. MARK D. WALDRON, Trustee, Appellee, Case No. 2:25-cv-00076-SAB (E.D. Wash.). Before the Court is the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Appellate Standing. The Appellant appears pro se. The Appellee is represented by Pamela Egan. The motion was heard without oral argument. The Giga Watt Project was formed to build and run a large-scale cryptocurrency mining operation. As part of the project, Giga Watt sold so-called "WTT Tokens" that entitled a token purchaser to use electricity generated by the Giga Watt facility to mine and generate cryptocurrency. The sales proceeds from the WTT Tokens totaled more than $22 million, which was held by Perkins Coie LLP in an escrow account. After the initial sale of tokens was complete, Perkins provided refunds to some purchasers, paying them from the escrow fund. Perkins subsequently transferred $21.6 million to Giga Watt entities, and by Feb. 22, 2018, the escrow account was depleted. Giga Watt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Nov. 19, 2018, in the Eastern District of Washington ("the Bankruptcy Case"). Defendant Mark D. Waldron ("Trustee Waldron") was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee on Jan. 24, 2019. On Nov. 30, 2020, Trustee Waldron commenced an adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding") against Perkins alleging that Perkins's disbursement of the escrow funds violated a fiduciary duty that resulted in Giga Watt's collapse. On Dec. 15, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the employment of Defendant Potomac Law Group ("PLG") as special litigation counsel in the Adversary Proceeding. On Dec. 16, 2020, Appellant Jun Dam filed a class action lawsuit in this Court (the "Class Action Suit"). The class members consisted of individuals, who had purchased WTT Tokens. PLG ultimately reached an agreement to settle both the Adversary Proceeding and the Class Action Suit (the "Settlement Agreement"), wherein Perkins agreed to pay $3 million to the bankruptcy estate and $4.5 million to the class members. On Oct. 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement. On Feb. 2, 2024, the Court entered a preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The class members were allowed to object or opt-out, but none did, and the Court then entered final approval of the Settlement Agreement on May 23, 2024. The Settlement Agreement defines a "Released Claim" as "any and all actions, claims, demands, rights, suits, and causes of action of whatever kind or nature against the Released Parties." It further defines "Released Parties" as the bankruptcy estate, Trustee Waldron, and "agents and attorneys" of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, it defines a "Releasing Party" as "Plaintiff and each and every Class Member." Under the Settlement Agreement's release clause, each Releasing Party was deemed to have waived any Released Claim against any Released Party. On Oct. 2, 2024, Trustee Waldron filed three omnibus objections to 283 claims that had been made against the bankruptcy estate, arguing that the claims should be disallowed and expunged from the Bankruptcy Court's claims register because they had been released under the Settlement Agreement. Although Trustee Waldron did not object to Dam's claim, on Jan. 7, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court granted Dam's motion to intervene. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court reviewed Dam's filings related to the omnibus objections and allowed him to present oral argument on Jan. 22, 2025. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court granted Trustee Waldron's omnibus objections (the "Order"). However, the Order did not disallow or expunge Dam's claim, and it still remains on the claims register in the Bankruptcy Court. On Feb. 18, 2025, Dam filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, which the Bankruptcy Court denied on Feb. 21, 2025. On March 6, 2025, Dam filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in case No. 2:25-cv-00076-SAB, seeking to overturn the Order. On March 17, 2025, the Appellee filed this Motion, asking this Court to deny Dam's appeal for lack of appellate standing. In this matter, Judge Bastian finds Dam lacks standing because he can demonstrate neither Article III standing nor that he has been aggrieved by the Order. With regard to Article III standing, Dam cannot identify an injury in fact that this Court could redress. Judge Bastian opines that the Order did not apply to his claim, so there is no injury, and reversing the Order would only provide redress to the individuals whose claims were disallowed and expunged from the claims register. With regard to whether Dam is aggrieved by the Order, Judge Bastian points out that it did not disallow or expunge his claim from the Bankruptcy Court's claims register. Therefore, although the Order indicates that the same logic would apply to Dam's claim, his claim has not yet been addressed and Dam has not suffered from diminished property, increased burdens, or detrimental effects on his rights as a result of the Order. As the Appellee points out, should Trustee Waldron object to Dam's claim in the future, he will have full opportunity to address whatever decision the Bankruptcy Court makes, Judge Bastian says. In light of these considerations, Judge Bastian holds that Dam does not have standing to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision, and the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss is granted. Accordingly, the Court grants the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Appellate Standing. The Appellant's Motion for Leave to File a Late Response to Trustee's Motion to Dismiss is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff and Appellee counsel, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr62buhs from PacerMonitor.com. GIGA WATT: E.D. Washington Grants Bid to Dismiss Dam's Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington grants the motion to dismiss appeal in the lawsuit styled In re: GIGA WATT INC., Debtor. JUN DAM, Appellant v. MARK D. WALDRON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee; POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC, Appellees, Case No. 2:24-cv-00334-SAB (E.D. Wash.). Before the Court is the Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Jun Dam's Appeal on Equitable Grounds. The Appellant appears pro se. The Appellees are represented by Pamela Egan. The motion was heard without oral argument. The Giga Watt Project was formed to build and run a large-scale cryptocurrency mining operation. As part of the project, Giga Watt sold so-called "WTT Tokens" that entitled a token purchaser to use electricity generated by the Giga Watt facility to mine and generate cryptocurrency. The sales proceeds from the WTT Tokens totaled more than $22 million, which was held by Perkins Coie LLP in an escrow account. After the initial sale of tokens was complete, Perkins provided refunds to some purchasers, paying them from the escrow fund. Perkins subsequently transferred $21.6 million to Giga Watt entities, and by Feb. 22, 2018, the escrow account was depleted. Giga Watt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Nov. 19, 2018, in the Eastern District of Washington ("the Bankruptcy Case"). Defendant Mark D. Waldron ("Trustee Waldron") was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee on Jan. 24, 2019. On Nov. 30, 2020, Trustee Waldron commenced an adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding") against Perkins alleging that Perkins's disbursement of the escrow funds violated a fiduciary duty that resulted in Giga Watt's collapse. On Dec. 15, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the employment of Defendant Potomac Law Group ("PLG") as special litigation counsel in the Adversary Proceeding. Pursuant to this employment, PLG was entitled to a 30% contingency fee of any recoveries obtained up to $10 million and a 25% contingency fee of any recoveries obtained that were greater than $10 million, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. On Dec. 16, 2020, Plaintiff Jun Dam filed a class action lawsuit in this Court (the "Class Action Suit"). The class members consisted of individuals, who had purchased WTT Tokens, and the class was represented by two law firms: Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP and the Western Washington Law Group, PLLP. ("Class Counsel"). PLG proceeded to work on the Adversary Proceeding for approximately three and a half years without objection--over one year of which was spent negotiating with Perkins and Class Counsel. They ultimately reached an agreement to settle both the Adversary Proceeding and the Class Action Suit (the "Settlement Agreement"), wherein Perkins agreed to pay $3 million to the bankruptcy estate and $4.5 million to the class members. On Oct. 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement. On Feb. 2, 2024, this Court entered a preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The class members were allowed to object or opt-out, but none did, and this Court then entered final approval of the Settlement Agreement on May 23, 2024. The Settlement Agreement defines a "Released Claim" as "any and all actions, claims, demands, rights, suits, and causes of action of whatever kind or nature against the Released Parties . . . ." It further defines "Released Parties" as the bankruptcy estate, Trustee Waldron, and "agents and attorneys" of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, it defines a "Releasing Party" as "Plaintiff and each and every Class Member." Under the Settlement Agreement's release clause, each Releasing Party was deemed to have waived any Released Claim against any Released Party. On July 26, 2024, PLG filed its final fee application, seeking $900,000 (i.e., 30% of the $3 million adversary proceeding settlement), plus $1,648.15 in expenses. However, on Aug. 22, 2024, Dam filed an objection, asking the Bankruptcy Court not to disburse any funds from the bankruptcy estate to PLG. On Sept. 17, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court granted PLG's application over Dam's objection, noting that counsel for PLG indicated that she spent 2,536.8 hours working on the Adversary Proceeding and that her typical rate is $600. Thus, PLG estimated its services were valued at $1,522,080 and the Bankruptcy Court found that the requested $900,000 was reasonable. The fees were paid to PLG on Sept. 19, 2024. On Sept. 26, 2024, Dam filed his Notice of Appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in case No. 2:24-cv-00334-SAB, contending that the award of fees were inappropriate due to "lack of standing and other procedural issues." On Oct. 1, 2024, the Appellees filed this Motion, asking the Court to deny Dam's appeal on equitable grounds. The main thrust of Dam's argument is that the release clause of the Settlement Agreement--that was approved by this Court--is void and unenforceable. Putting his arguments aside, Judge Bastian opines that Dam was represented by legal counsel during the Class Action Suit and cannot now launch a collateral attack on the Settlement Agreement. Even assuming Dam could collaterally attack the Settlement Agreement, without PLG's services there would be no Settlement Agreement for Dam to dispute, Judge Bastian says. PLG spent 2,536.8 hours working on the Adversary Proceeding over three and a half years--over a year of which was spent negotiating the Settlement Agreement with Perkins and Class Counsel. And despite being present at the Settlement Agreement negotiations and receiving the opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Agreement, Judge Bastian points out that Dam never objected to PLG's representation or opted out of the Settlement Agreement. In light of these facts, Judge Bastian holds that equity weighs in favor of dismissing the appeal and the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss on Equitable Grounds is granted. Accordingly, the Court grants the Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Jun Dam's Appeal on Equitable Grounds. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Appellant and Appellee counsel, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jdsyp43 from PacerMonitor.com. GODADDY.COM LLC: Drazen's Bid to Certify Order for Appeal Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, grants the Motion to Certify the Order for Appeal in the lawsuits titled SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00563-KD-B (S.D. Ala.). JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-00094-KD-B (S.D. Ala.). The action is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider the Court's Feb. 6, 2025 Order or to Certify the Order for Appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) filed by Plaintiffs Susan Drazen and Jason Bennett. In a previous order, the Court denied the Motion to Reconsider but ordered Defendant Godaddy.com, LLC, to file a response as to the Motion to Certify the Order for Appeal. Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth in this Order, Court grants the Motion to Certify the Order for Appeal. The Plaintiffs brought actions against GoDaddy under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, which were consolidated. Before consolidation, Drazen filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Drazen's unopposed motion was granted, and the Plaintiffs' lawyers were appointed as Class Counsel. A third related action, Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, (No. 2:16-cv-00254 (D. Ariz.)) was incorporated into and resolved by the parties' settlement. On Dec. 23, 2020, the Court entered a final judgment and approval order ("Final Approval Order") that approved the Settlement Agreement and granted Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees. The Settlement Agreement gave either party the right to terminate the settlement if an appellate court vacated or reversed the Final Approval Order on any basis other than the approval of attorney's fees. Three months later, the Supreme Court decided Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021). In Facebook, the Supreme Court held that "[t]o qualify as an 'automatic telephone dialing system,' a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator." This decision favored GoDaddy's position in the consolidated actions. After the settlement--but before Facebook was decided--class member objector Juan Pinto appealed the Final Approval Order to the Eleventh Circuit. Pinto's appeal was first entertained in June 2022 to cure a standing problem created by the application of Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) (Drazen v. Pinto (Drazen I), 41 F.4th 1354, 1363 (11th Cir. 2022)) (vacating and remanding for the opportunity to revise the class definition). "The mandate did not issue, and the case was reheard en banc to address the vitality of Salcedo's standing holding," Drazen v. Pinto (Drazen II), 74 F.4th 1336, 1342 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). The Eleventh Circuit addressed that issue and sent the case back to the original panel to decide the third appeal--"whether the District Court abused its direction in approving the proposed settlement agreement, certifying the class, granting Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees, and entering the final judgment." Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that this Court abused its discretion "in several ways." The Eleventh Circuit's opinion "vacate[d] the final judgment of the District Court and its order granting attorney's fees and remand[ed] the cases to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the holdings of [the] opinion," Drazen v. Pinto, 101 F.4th 1223, 1278 (11th Cir. 2024). After granting a petition for rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and substituted a new one (Drazen v. Pinto, 106 F.4th 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2024)). The new opinion "is the same as [the] previous one, except that [the Eleventh Circuit clarified] that the opinion of [the] Court is delivered solely in Section III.C.iii., in which Judges Wilson, Branch, and Tjoflat joined." Section III.C.iii. discussed the calculation of attorney's fees. On remand, the Court faced the issue of whether the Eleventh Circuit's new opinion and judgment vacated the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement on any basis other than the approval of attorney's fees. Initially, the Court interpreted the Eleventh Circuit's opinion to have only vacated the judgment as it relates to attorney's fees. But the Court solicited the opinion of the parties and determined that the Eleventh Circuit vacated approval of the Settlement Agreement and the order on attorney's fees--meaning GoDaddy had the right to terminate. Thus, the Court issued an order denying the motion for attorney's fees, and the motion to enforce the settlement. Still, the Court explained that the Eleventh Circuit's intent was uncertain. Following the order on remand, six motions were filed. GoDaddy filed (1) a motion to dismiss Bennett's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1); (2) a motion to decertify the class; (3) a motion to dismiss Drazen's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (4) a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Bennett's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court ordered further briefing on three motions. The Plaintiffs filed (5) a motion to reconsider the order on remand, or to certify the order for appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and (6) a motion to hold case in abeyance pending resolution of the motion to certify. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, ordered briefing on the motion to certify, and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to hold case in abeyance. To start, Judge DuBose notes that the parties characterize the nature of permissive interlocutory appeals differently. The Plaintiffs emphasize 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b)'s "practical bent." GoDaddy, on the other hand, emphasizes the restrictive nature of 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Here, the overall framing of Section 1292(b) is not dispositive because the Order involves a rare and exceptional issue--whether the Eleventh Circuit's new opinion and judgment vacated the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement on a basis other than the approval of attorney's fees, Judge DuBose opines. Resolving this issue clarifies whether GoDaddy may terminate the Settlement Agreement. Still, the Court must be satisfied that its order on remand: (1) "involves a controlling question of law," (2) "as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion," and (3) "that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court determines that Section 1292(b)'s requirements are met. Judge DuBose says here, the issue whether the Eleventh Circuit vacated the approval of the Settlement Agreement on any basis other than the approval of attorney's fees, and does not involve summary judgment. In other words, the issue does not involve a run-of-the-mine question requiring the appellate court to dig deep into the record of the case. To the contrary, Judge DuBose explains, the issue involves the interpretation of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion and mandate. As pointed out by the Plaintiffs, the Eleventh Circuit is in the best position to opine about the scope of its own mandate. Thus, Judge DuBose holds, interlocutory appeal of the Order involves a controlling question of law because it presents a legal issue that does not require the Eleventh Circuit to study the record. Judge DuBose notes there is a high level of uncertainty over whether the Eleventh Circuit's opinion vacated the Court's approval of the Settlement Agreement or only the Court's approval of attorney's fees. Therefore, there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion over the question appealed. Judge DuBose points out that the litigation will be substantially shortened by an immediate appeal. GoDaddy has four motions pending before the Court, which require further briefing from the parties. The issue on appeal determines GoDaddy's right to terminate. Thus, an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The Court holds that an appeal of the Order is warranted because it (1) "involves a controlling question of law," (2) "as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion," and (3) "an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Therefore, the Motion to Certify the Order for Appeal, is granted. The following is a controlling question of law: Did Drazen v. Pinto, 106 F.4th 1302 (11th Cir. 2024) vacate the Final Approval Order on any basis other than the approval of attorney's fees? A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3494uc3w from PacerMonitor.com. HEALTHEQUITY INC: Arbitration-Related Discovery OK'd in Hafoka Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the plaintiff's motion for expedited arbitration-related discovery in the case captioned as KRISTIN HAFOKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHEQUITY, INC., FURTHER OPERATIONS, LLC and WAGEWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00528-JNP-DBP (D. Utah.). This case is a putative class action for a data breach. Plaintiffs are consumers who had their personally identifiable information, and or protected health information, compromised in a large data breach. Defendants administer health saving accounts, and work with various clients through HSA, FSA, HRA, COBRA, Direct bill, commuter, fitness, and education reimbursement programs. Plaintiffs allege Defendants' security failures allowed the targeted cyberattack to compromise their network exposing their protected information. Defendant has moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs seek discovery related to Defendant's Motion. Specifically, information regarding contract formation, notice of the arbitration provision, and the purported facts Defendants have set forth to support their Motion to Compel. The question before the Court is whether to allow this discovery, or, based on the delegation clause as asserted by Defendants, leave such discovery for the arbitrator presuming the matter is sent to arbitration. Plaintiffs argue the discovery they seek is necessary for the Court's determination of the threshold, dispositive issue of contract formation. Defendant seeks to avoid discovery arguing all arbitration-related discovery should be conducted in arbitration, as the parties intended. The premise of Defendant's position rests on the formation of a contract that includes the delegation clauses. Plaintiffs challenge the formation of a contract to arbitrate in the first instance and seek discovery surrounding its formation. Judge Pead holds, "The question of contract formation arises before the applicability of any delegation clause undermining Defendant's arguments. Not all arbitrability issues can be delegated. And the issue of 'whether an arbitration agreement was formed between the parties must always be decided by a court, regardless of whether the alleged agreement contained a delegation clause or whether one of the parties specifically challenged such a clause.' Evidence surrounding the formation of the alleged agreement will help the court in making its determination. Plaintiffs may therefore serve limited discovery regarding the issue of contract formation." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuPkNB from PacerMonitor.com. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Court Won't Seal Portions of Settlement Motion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Samuel J. Horovitz of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the plaintiffs' request to provisionally seal portions of their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, etc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00724-TJC-SJH (M.D. Fla.) under Local Rule 1.11. Plaintiffs seek sealing on the sole basis that Defendant, Heartland Payment Systems, LLC, has designated material confidential under a Stipulated Protective Order. However, they take no position on whether good cause supports sealing the materials. They instead defer to Heartland, which bears the burden to demonstrate that sealing is warranted. Indeed, Plaintiffs seek sealing of only a provisional duration until Heartland substantiates the basis for maintaining the material under seal. No other memorandum supporting the seal has been filed, and the deadline for such a memorandum has passed. Thus, no good cause for sealing has been shown, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VbxN8o from PacerMonitor.com. HERTZ CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jonte Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA JONTE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, CLEO COMMUNICATIONS US, LLC and CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-50178 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2025) alleges that Hertz breached its duty to protect the sensitive personally identifiable information entrusted to it. As a provider of vehicle rental services, Hertz knowingly obtains sensitive customer and employee PII and has a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of himself other individuals whose PII was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of the Defendant’s system which was announced when Hertz posted a notice on its website1 and began mailing out notices to affected individuals on or about April 2, 2025. (the "Data Breach"). According to cybernews sources, between October 2024 and December 2024, a well-known ransomware group, CLOP, accessed Defendant’s information network and claimed to have stolen a massive amount of data from Defendant’s subsidiaries, Hertz, Thrifty, and Dollar, brands "in the Cleo zero-day data theft attacks." To accomplish this, the ransomware group exploited vulnerabilities in Cleo's file-transfer software. Additionally, the data stolen included Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, including customers' names, contact information, date of birth, credit card information, driver's license information, Social Security numbers or government identification numbers, passport information, Medicare or Medicaid ID's and information related to workers compensation claims. CLOP is one of the most active hackers, having hacked over 63 companies around the world since its inception during 2019. CLOP also engages in double extortion tactics, demanding ransom and then publishing the stolen data. CLOP also reportedly shares its tactics with other hackers, enabling other groups to conduct renewed attacks on victims in exchange for a percentage of the ransom. The harm resulting from a breach of private data manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and financial fraud. The exposure of a person's PII through a data breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of their lives. Mitigating that risk -- to the extent it is even possible to do so -- requires individuals to devote significant time and money to closely monitor their credit, financial accounts, health records, and email accounts, and to take a number of additional prophylactic measures, says the suit. Cleo provides cloud-based information management systems and managed file transfer platforms to a variety of industries, including to Hertz.[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 Phone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com IBOTTA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 16 -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ibotta, Inc. ("Ibotta" or the "Company") (NYSE:IBTA) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ibotta securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Ibotta's April 18, 2024 initial public offering (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 16, 2025, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that in connection with the Initial Public Offering on April 18, 2024, Ibotta issued a registration statement that contained false and/or misleading statements or omissions. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (1) The registration statement failed to warn investors of the risks concerning Ibotta's contract with The Kroger Co. ("Kroger"); (2) Kroger's contract was at-will, and Ibotta failed to warn investors that a large client could cancel their contract with Ibotta without warning. Despite providing a detailed explanation of the terms of Ibotta's contract with another large customer, there was not a single warning of the at-will nature of Kroger's contract; (3) Rather than disclosing the very real risk of a major client walking away at any time, Ibotta provided boilerplate warnings concerning the importance of maintaining ongoing relationships with their clients; (4) By August 13, 2024, Kroger was no longer listed as a client in Ibotta's SEC filings; and (5) The price of Ibotta's securities has plummeted since the IPO, devastating investors. Currently, Ibotta stock trades significantly lower than the IPO price of $88.00 per share. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ibotta shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] IBOTTA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Ibotta, Inc. (NYSE: IBTA) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Ibotta's April 18, 2024 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ibotta investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Ibotta class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36526 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the risks concerning Ibotta's contract with The Kroger Co. ("Kroger"). Kroger's contract was at-will, and Ibotta failed to warn investors that a large client could cancel their contract with Ibotta without warning. Despite providing a detailed explanation of the terms of Ibotta's contract with another large customer, there was not a single warning of the at-will nature of Kroger's contract. Rather than disclosing the very real risk of a major client walking away at any time, Ibotta provided boilerplate warnings concerning the importance of maintaining ongoing relationships with their clients. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 16, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36526 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Flip & Tow Coolers Not Safe, Nguyen Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- VY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:25-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2025) alleges that "Flip & Tow Coolers" do not meet minimum standards of operating with the necessary level of safety. The Defendant designed and sold approximately 1,060,000 Igloo Flip & Tow 90 Quart Coolers between January 2019 and January 2025 with a dangerously defective tow handle that can 'pinch consumers' fingertips against the cooler, posing fingertip amputation and crushing hazards” (the "Defect"). As a result of this dangerous defect, Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced on Feb. 13, 2025, a recall of Igloo Flip & Tow 90 Quart Coolers manufactured prior to Jan. 2024 and sold in the United States (the "Recall"). As part of the Recall, consumers have been advised to "immediately stop using the recalled coolers and contact Igloo for a free replacement handle," says the suit. The CPSC's urgency is merited, as the CPSC has "received 12 reports of fingertip injuries, including fingertip amputations, bone fractures, and lacerations" caused by the defective Flip & Tow Coolers. The Defendant specifically advertises the tow handle -- which it calls a "comfort-grip swing-up rear handle" -- and boasts that it "reduces towing force by up to 50% for easy pulling." The lawsuit says that Igloo is perhaps the most instantly-recognizable brand name for coolers, ice chests, and similar products in the nation. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, and sells the Flip & Tow 90 Quart Cooler for approximately $80-$1402 at retailers such as Costco, Target, Dicks, Amazon, and directly from Igloo via their online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 910 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 614-7260 Facsimile: (310) 614-7260 E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com breed@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com IMMEDIATE APPLIANCE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anticompetitive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt has filed a class action lawsuit against several major rental equipment companies on behalf of Immediate Appliance Service, Inc, a leading appliance repair company based in New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have engaged in anticompetitive practices in the rental equipment market. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claims the defendants, including RB Global, Inc., Rouse Services LLC, United Rentals, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Herc Holdings Inc., H&E Equipment Services Inc., Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, and The Home Depot, Inc., conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental prices for various rental equipment used in construction, manufacturing, entertainment, and other industries. Immediate Appliance Service, Inc. alleges that it has experienced higher prices due to the defendants' actions. The complaint details how the defendants exchanged competitively sensitive information through Rouse Services, facilitating an unlawful conspiracy to fix rental prices of equipment ranging from air compressors and generators to forklifts and excavators, among other equipment. The class action seeks to represent those who rented equipment from defendants as early as March 31, 2021, and, because of defendants' unlawful practices, paid "supracompetitive" prices for such rentals. The case is Immediate Appliance Service, Inc. v. RB Global, Inc., et al., Case: 1:25-cv-04139 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A copy of the complaint is available here. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases—whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise—for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations—and our capital—on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Media Contact Caitlin Whitehurst, Director of Communications, cwhitehurst@dicellolevitt.com [GN] INDIAN HARBOR: Court Stays Class Discovery in Morrison Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, grants the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Stay of Class Discovery in the lawsuit captioned GARY MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, Plaintiff v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY and PENINSULA INSURANCE BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00451 (S.D.W. Va.). The putative class action is premised on the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants wrongfully failed to pay him full replacement cost under a flood insurance policy. On July 1, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and permitted the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to add more specific allegations to support his Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA) claim. On July 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, in which he alleges claims for Declaratory Judgment/Breach of Contract against Defendant Indian Harbor (Count I), Allegations under Rule 23 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure against Defendant Indian Harbor (Count II), Common Law Bad Faith against Defendant Indian Harbor (Count III), and Unfair Trade Practices against both Defendants (Count IV). In the July 1, 2024 ruling, the Court held that the policy language at issue permits Indian Harbor to pay an insured actual cash value until repairs, replacement, and reinstatements are effected. Additionally, the policy provides that an insured, who is paid actual cash value, has 180 days after the date of loss to present a claim to recover the depreciated amount. The Court could not determine, however, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to replacement value as the Court did not know what the Plaintiff told the Defendants about his damages, whether he submitted any evidence of cost of repair, or what misleading information he believes he was given. The Court concluded those factual issues are best fleshed out through discovery and declined to dismiss the Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment/Breach of Contract claim. As the breach of contract claim was not dismissed, the Court also denied the motion with respect to dismissing the Plaintiff's common law bad faith claim and his UTPA claim. Since that time, the Defendants assert the evidence produced in discovery establishes that the Plaintiff was properly paid on an actual cash value basis. The Defendants argue the evidence necessary to resolve the Plaintiff's case is fact specific to his situation and establishes a non-viable stand-alone action. Therefore, the Defendants assert this case cannot serve as the basis for a class action and the Court should grant the Defendants a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to shield them from unnecessary, irrelevant, and burdensome class discovery. Although demonstrating "good cause" is a high bar under Rule 26(c), the Court finds the Defendants have met that burden under the facts of this case. Judge Chambers finds that the Plaintiff correctly points out that the Court did not limit discovery when it ruled on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and the Court recognizes that the Magistrate Judge accurately acknowledged the same in a recent decision allowing certain discovery to proceed. However, now that the Defendants have expressly moved for a protective order and stay of class discovery based on evidence that was not available to the Court when it made its earlier ruling, the Court finds that a stay is appropriate until discovery on the Plaintiff's individual claims is complete and any dispositive motions following that discovery are resolved. Additionally, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's recent discovery decisions entered on March 31, 2025, and April 8, 2025, and specifically rules that this decision staying any new attempts to obtain additional class discovery should not be interpreted as restricting or impairing any of the discovery rulings previously made by the Magistrate Judge. The parties are expected to fully comply with those decisions. Furthermore, by staying any additional discovery on the class claim, the Court makes clear that it is not expressing any opinion as to the merits of the Plaintiff's individual claims. It merely finds that the Defendants should not be required to produce additional burdensome class discovery until the parties have the opportunity to more fully litigate the Plaintiff's individual claims. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order and to Stay Class Discovery, but the parties can proceed with discovery of the Plaintiff's individual claims. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5e6s2mf6 from PacerMonitor.com. JOHN R. MCKOWEN: Loses Bid to Reopen Paulson Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied defendant John McKowen's motion to reopen the case captioned as JOHN PAULSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. MCKOWEN, WAYNE HARDING, and TIMOTHY BEALL, Defendants, 19-cv-02639-PAB-NRN (D. Colo.). Mr. McKowen's motion to enforce the Paulson Settlement Agreement, release property from bankruptcy, and appoint trustee for oversight is denied without prejudice. Mr. Paulson brought a securities class action against defendants McKowen, Wayne Harding, and Timothy Beall. On July 21, 2021, Mr. Paulson filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, approval of notice to the class, preliminary certification of the class for the purposes of settlement, and appointment of class counsel. On Jan. 19, 2022, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval. On April 29, 2022, the Court held a fairness hearing. On March 15, 2023, the Court granted Mr. Paulson's motion for final approval of the settlement. The Court gave final approval to the Settlement Agreement and ordered that plaintiff and all class members are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting, initiating, prosecuting, or continuing any of the claims released by the Settlement Agreement. No class members opted out of the settlement. The Court ordered that, without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the Settlement Agreement, including its implementation. Final judgment entered on March 16, 2023. On Oct. 24, 2024, Mr. McKowen, who is proceeding pro se, filed a motion to reopen this case to address ongoing violations of the Paulson Settlement Agreement and to facilitate the Court's enforcement of the settlement provisions. He cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) as the basis for this motion to reopen because there exists fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Mr. McKowen claims that the Paulson Settlement Agreement prohibits further litigation on any claim that were or could have been asserted in the class action. He argues that Contemnors, including Gregory A. Harrington, have taken actions in violation of the Paulson Settlement Agreement by filing adversary proceedings alleging claims that mirror those addressed and barred by the Paulson Settlement. Mr. McKowen argues that the Contemnors are using the bankruptcy process . to delay or obstruct foreclosure that has resulted in significant harm to Mr. McKowen, whose rights are protected under the Paulson Settlement Agreement. He states that this case should be reopened so that the Court can consider his motion to enforce the Paulson Settlement Agreement. He asks that the Court enforce the Paulson Settlement Agreement by releasing property from bankruptcy to McKowen for development or sale, dismiss adversary complaints filed by Two Rivers Farms F-2 in the bankruptcy proceedings, and appoint a Trustee to oversee the management of property. On March 3, 2025, Mr. McKowen filed a complaint against Greg Harrington, Two Rivers Water & Farming Company, TR Capital Partners, LLC, Two Rivers Farms F-2, Inc., Wayne Harding, The State of Colorado, Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, Colorado Securities Commissioner Tung Chang, and John Does (McKowen v. Harrington, 25-cv-00708-PAB-KAS). The Court finds that it serves the interests of judicial economy to resolve the issue of whether the Contemnors have violated the Paulson Settlement Agreement in McKowen v. Harrington, 25-cv-00708-PAB-KAS, rather than in this case. Doing so not only avoids duplicative litigation, but also has the advantage of resolving the issue in a case where the alleged Contemnors are parties to the case, which is not true in this case. Therefore, the Court will deny Mr. McKowen's motion to reopen this case and will deny without prejudice his motion to enforce the Paulson Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aE0W3b from PacerMonitor.com. KARBON BIKES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Thorne Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KARBON BIKES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03085 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.karbonbikes.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. KARBON BIKES, LLC is a manufacturer of mountain bikes and electric mountain bikes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KAWEAH DELTA: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- The Kaweah Delta Health Care District has agreed to settle a class action suit brought on behalf of more than 6,000 current and former employees who claim the district underpaid them for years. The settlement will cost the district more than $500,000. Employees from 2019 to 2024 in Payout Included in the class are all of the district's employees who worked from October 19, 2019 to June 27, 2021, and any employee who was on-call from October 19, 2019 to November 19, 2024. The class action suit represents 6,180 people who were employed by the district during these times. The lawsuit's initial complaint was filed on April 3, 2023. The plaintiffs allege that during these periods Kaweah Health required employees to work off-the-clock during lunch breaks, rounded down the hours employees worked, and that it failed to pay employees while they were on-call. Employees also said they were required to attend lengthy training sessions but were only paid for one hour. The district has agreed to a $475,000 payment to settle the case. Kaweah also agreed to pay the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency $37,500 in civil penalties, as well as applicable employee taxes. The district admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to settle the case against it. The amount each employee will receive as compensation will vary depending on the length of employment and their rates of pay. The two primary plaintiffs -- Mayra Diaz and Robert Villareal -- will receive an additional $5,000 each. Payouts Begin After Final Court OK Employees who expect to receive compensation should have already gotten a notice from Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions, who will process the payments when they begin. Parties in the suit received tentative approval of the settlement in November of 2023. Final approval of the settlement and its terms is scheduled at 8:30 a.m. on May 13 in Department 2 of the Tulare County Superior Court before Judge Bret Hillman. No payouts can be made before the court's final approval. Of the settlement amount, $105,273.75 -- including $15,000 for "class counsel's costs" -- will go to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Gains, Alex Katofsky and Evan Gains of the Westlake Village-based law firm Gains & Gains; and Joseph Tojarieh of the Los Angeles-based law firm Stonebrook Law. Phoenix, the settlement administrator, will receive $32,500. The $37,500 in civil penalties paid to the state represents 75% of a larger amount. The remaining 25% of penalty funds goes to the plaintiffs, who acted as representatives of the state Attorney General under the provisions of the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 (PAGA). PAGA allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the state attorney general in certain labor matters. Both parties agreed not to announce the settlement publicly or speak about it to the media. Plaintiffs Satisfied with Settlement Terms To ensure the main plaintiffs in the case -- Diaz and Villareal -- were OK with the way their case was settled, both were required to file statements with the court to that effect. Both statements, though signed separately by Diaz and Villareal, are virtually the same. "I am very happy about the results of this litigation," their statement read. "I am satisfied that the defendant is compensating class members for unpaid wages, penalties and interest that I believe we are due." Both statements then describe the number of hours each primary plaintiff spent researching their employment history and contact with their former employers. The pair will be compensated additionally for that work. The plaintiffs' statements also explain the reasoning behind the lawsuit against Kaweah Delta Health Care District. Money wasn't the driving factor, they said. "By bringing this lawsuit, and throughout its course, I have put the interests of the class ahead of my own," the statement stated. "I understood that I could possibly earn a small enhancement payment if this case resolved itself favorably, but always knew that I could also be responsible for paying (the) defendant's attorneys' fees and costs if it did not. My goal in bringing this lawsuit was to obtain a recovery on behalf of the class, and even more importantly, to put an end to what I believed were illegal practices on the part of (the) defendant." The statement also makes clear that Diaz and Villareal were aware of the danger to their reputations challenging Kaweah Delta could present. "This lawsuit will almost certainly result in reputational harm to me. There is a stigma associated with suing anyone, let alone your former employer," the pair believes, according to the statement filed with the court. "I will probably be adversely affected when it comes to obtaining future employment -- employers who learn that I sued Defendant in a class action will likely avoid hiring me." The amount of individual payouts will be determined by a complex formula based on the number of weeks each of the 6,180 affected employees worked during the time periods described in the suit. Different subdivisions of the class of plaintiffs -- those whose pay hours were rounded down, and those who were underpaid for time on-call -- will receive a portion based on several additional factors. The settlement was signed by Kaweah CEO Gary Herbst on August 11, 2024. Diaz and Villareal agreed to the settlement terms days earlier. It was accepted and approved by the court on October 22, 2024. Not the First Time Kaweah Health Settled a Labor Action This appears to be at least the second time Kaweah Delta Health Care District has found itself defending its pay practices. It also appears this is the second time it has settled out of court to end a labor lawsuit. In 2021, Quail Park at Cypress was a defendant in a similar suit. Employees claimed improper compensation for meals, as well as inappropriate rounding of work hours and calculation errors in wage statements and paychecks. At the time the matter was settled, the district owned 44% of Quail Park at Cypress and the associated Memory Care Center. The district and its partner -- Living Care Senior Housing -- shared equal voting rights on the two facilities' boards of directors. A mediated settlement, which was to be paid out in 2022, cost Quail Park $721,287, according to the minutes of a September 2021 meeting of the Kaweah Delta Health Care District's Finance, Property, Services and Acquisition Committee. The same report said the district had so far received $10,815,571 from the partnership. The district's initial investment was $1,588,770. Of that $900,000 was land donated by the district. The remainder was a cash payment of $688,770. The report did not state how many employees were included in the class action suit. Racial Discrimination Case Dropped Kaweah Health also faced a lawsuit that alleged racial discrimination in the firing of Gail Robinson, a former health information manager for the district. Robinson worked for the district from September 2019 to October 2022. That suit has been dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. After leaving the district, Robinson claimed she experienced poor treatment from her supervisors and fellow employees because of her race. She was the only black person in her department. Robinson also alleged she had witnessed and reported to her supervisors repeated safety violations, Medicare and documentation fraud, improper medical practices, and inappropriate disclosure of medical records with identifying patient information. The case was dismissed on February 22, 2024. [GN] KENNY AMURO: Landlords Lose Bid to Enjoin Class Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as ISLAND PALM COMMUNITIES LLC; and HICKAM COMMUNITIES LLC, Petitioners, vs. KENNY AMURO and JOSHUA BRANTLEY, Respondents, Case No. 24-cv-00458-LEK-RT (D. Hawaii), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied the Island Palm Communities LLC and Hickam Communities LLC's ("the Landlords") emergency motion to enjoin class arbitration pending appeal and cross-appeal. The Landlords filed this action to vacate two orders entered in an ongoing arbitration proceeding between the Landlords, Amuro and Brantley, and other claimants. On March 25, 2025, the Court issued an order that granted the Landlords' relief in part. In the March 25 Order, the Court ruled that only the Landlords' citizenship and Amuro's and Brantley's respective citizenships were relevant to the determination of whether there is complete diversity in the instant case, and this Court concluded that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. The Court vacated the two contested orders as to Amuro and Brantley and denied the Landlords' request for relief as to the other Arbitration Claimants. On March 28, 2025, Amuro and Brantley filed a notice of appeal from the March 25 Order. On April 15, 2025, the Landlords filed a notice initiating a cross-appeal from the March 25 Order. To the extent that the Landlords seek any order from the Court enjoining any portion of the Arbitration, it has ruled that the only Arbitration Claimants it has jurisdiction over are Amuro and Brantley. The Landlords were given the opportunity to file an amended Petition and a new motion to vacate to identify other Arbitration Claimants over whom diversity jurisdiction exists. However, the deadline for the Landlords to do so has come and gone, and they have not sought an extension of the deadline. The instant Motion asks the Court for the extraordinary relief of enjoining the Arbitration proceedings as to all of the Arbitration Claimants, even though the Landlords have not resolved the jurisdictional issues identified in the March 25 Order. Because the Arbitrator has expressed the intent to consider Amuro's and Brantley's claims on an individual basis, and because the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on issues relating to the other Arbitration Claimants, there is no basis for it to enjoin any portion of the Arbitration proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UHQ4gU from PacerMonitor.com. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: McCarty's Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LITIGATION, Master Docket: Misc. No. Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 3014. This Document Relates to: McCarty v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-1656 (W.D. Pa.). Pending before the Court is a motion for appointment of counsel filed by Plaintiff Brian McCarty. Judge Conti says the motion is resolved without a response from the parties. Mr. McCarty's filed a complaint asserting he is a representative plaintiff in this class action case, which is part of the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") No. 3014. The Court can, therefore, form a threshold finding about the arguable merits of McCarty's claim. McCarty was represented in his case by Sandra Duggan, Arnold Levin, Laurence Berman and Frederick Longer of the law firm Levin Sedran & Berman LLP. Duggan was later appointed as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit from a field of 75 applicants. The parties in the multidistrict litigation notified the Court that they reached a private settlement of certain of the personal injury claims. The Philips Defendants will be making the final installment of a $1.075 Billion payment to the settlement fund on March 14, 2025. Mr. McCarty's letter to the Court provided no information about whether or not he is participating in that settlement. At the Feb. 25, 2025 status conference of MDL No. 3014, the Court was made aware that McCarty is registered for the settlement program. The Philips Defendants are Philips RS North America LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA Inc., and Philips RS North America Holding Corp. The Court also needs additional information about the other factors under Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 154-55 (3d Cir. 1993). Judge Conti notes that McCarty did not make any attestations to his status as indigent; he makes no mention of any effort to obtain other counsel for himself, or the degree to which investigation or expert testimony is required, but he did note the complexity of the case. It is not clear if McCarty's registration for the settlement has been adjudicated or if he elected the expedited review program in the settlement registration process. If he has been approved as an eligible claimant, the Court is unable to discern whether McCarty requires counsel to assist with settlement claims. In sum, Judge Conti holds that the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. In this civil case, the Court cannot compel an attorney to represent McCarty. The Tabron factors do not support appointment of counsel. The denial, however, will be without prejudice for McCarty to file a new motion that demonstrates why the Court should solicit an attorney to volunteer to contribute the "precious commodity" of pro bono time to assist him, Judge Conti explains. Further, the Court has denied, without prejudice, the motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Levin Sedran & Berman as McCarty may need the advice of counsel from time to time pending his selection of replacement counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/48mk4ukf from PacerMonitor.com. LABORATORY SERVICES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LABORATORY SERVICES COOPERATIVE (LSC), Case No. 2:25-cv-00695 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2025) alleges that LSC failed to protect the patient information it was entrusted, compromising the personal information of over one million individuals (the "Data Breach"), as announced by the Defendant on April 10, 2025. Accordingly, LSC failed to properly secure and safeguard the highly valuable highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and personal health information of its patients, including patients' full names, SSNs, driver's license or passport numbers, government-issued IDs, dates of service, diagnoses, treatments, lab results, health insurance information, billing details, bank and payment card information, and other personal information. To receive diagnostic testing services from certain Planned Parenthood clinics, patients are required to entrust Laboratory Services Cooperative with their highly sensitive and personally identifiable information and personal health information, which Laboratory Services Cooperative uses to engage in its usual business activities as an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. To reassure its patients, Planned Parenthood promises patients that it and its affiliates, including Laboratory Services Cooperative, "respect and are committed to protecting the privacy of users of our websites, applications, and other online and electronic services" and they "understand that health information about you and your healthcare is personal" and “are committed to protecting health information about you." LSC is a designated non-profit organization and independent clinical laboratory based in Seattle, Washington that offers diagnostic testing services to select Planned Parenthood health centers throughout the United States. LSC was established in April 2010 as an independent non-profit organization, but originated as the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW) Laboratory in Bremerton in May 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Ryan Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com LIFE INSURANCE: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Hoffman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order resolving discovery disputes in the lawsuit captioned SCOTT HOFFMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is the Parties' Joint Discovery Statement ("Joint Statement") pursuant to which named Plaintiff Krimbow seeks to compel production of documents from Defendant Life Insurance Company of the Southwest ("LICS"). Plaintiff Krimbow was one of several Plaintiffs in this putative class action asserting that the Defendant charged undisclosed fees for deferred indexed annuity products in violation of the California Education Code and Unfair Competition Law. Following a motion to dismiss, only Plaintiff Krimbow's claim arising out of an undisclosed rider fee on a registered indexed annuity survived (Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss ("MTD Order")). The Plaintiff was given leave to amend, but did not do so. The Parties now dispute the scope of relevant discovery. In particular, the Parties dispute whether the Plaintiff's definitions of "Rider Fees" and "Indexed Annuity 403(b) Products" are relevant and proportional in light of the MTD Order. In relevant part for this dispute, the Amended Complaint alleges as follows. Krimbow was invested in a 403(b) product offered by the Defendant called SecurePlus Platinum from Sept. 17, 2019, through 2023. Within the past four years, Krimbow has incurred fees within this product that were illegal pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code Sections 25101, 25107 because they were not disclosed as required by the Code. Plaintiff Krimbow was also charged rider fees that were not disclosed on the Website. Between September 2019 (when Krimbow first invested in the SecurePlus Platinum product) and 2023, the Website has stated that the SecurePlus Platinum product offered an optional Guaranteed Lifetime Income Rider, and that investors, who selected the rider, would pay annual fees of between 0.65% and 0.75% of their account balance. Krimbow selected this rider when opening her account, but was charged an annual rate of 0.90% for the rider over the next four years, 20% higher than the maximum rate disclosed on the Website. The Amended Complaint defines "Direct Fees" only with a description of "Riders." Riders -- when an investor signs up for an indexed annuity, they can choose to purchase a "rider," which provides additional features in the contract. Riders may provide additional flexibility regarding when money can be withdrawn without penalty (e.g., disability or nursing home confinement), how money is credited (e.g., provides a boost to the Crediting Strategies or limits the fees), or how much money can be withdrawn (e.g., allowing guaranteed minimum withdrawal amounts where certain criteria are met). Most riders come with a direct fee that is deducted from the contract value. The Amended Complaint also contains class allegations. Much of the MTD focused on whether various undisclosed fees can support a cause of action under the UCL. Relevant to the dispute at hand, the Defendant cogently summarized Judge Pitts' conclusion on this subject. In ultimately allowing Plaintiff Krimbow's claim, the Court stated: Krimbow has, thus, adequately pleaded that she was charged a fee associated with a registered 403(b) product that was not disclosed in violation of Section 25107. This suffices to state a claim under the UCL's unlawful prong. The Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to indirect fees and as to unregistered products and that the Plaintiff's remaining claims, therefore, relate to direct fees charged in connection with registered products. In the requests for the production of documents (RFPs), the Plaintiff uses the term "Rider Fees," which she defines as follows: "Rider Fees" means charges related to an Indexed Annuity 403(b) Product that directly reduce the investor's account balance." Finally, in the Joint Statement, the Plaintiff revises her proposed class. In light of the Court's Order, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors, who share the following characteristics: 1) they purchased a registered product from the Defendant, and 2) they were charged an undisclosed direct fee. The Plaintiff now seeks discovery covering all direct fees for registered products that should have been disclosed on the Defendant's website. The Defendant objects to the extent the RFPs cover fees other than the specific rider fee paid for by the Plaintiff or products beyond the specific annuity she purchased. In evaluating discovery in putative class actions, the Court looks to the proposed class definition along with other pertinent allegations in the operative complaint. Here, the Court's process is also informed by the MTD Order, which alters the scope of the Amended Complaint and its proposed class. As set forth here, pursuant to the MTD Order, only direct fees are relevant. The Amended Complaint provides a single example of a "Direct Fee": a "rider" which is a fee that "provides additional features in the contract." By contrast, the RFPs define "Rider Fees" much more broadly as any charge that directly reduces the investor's account balance. The Court shares the Defendant's concern that the Plaintiff's definition of "Rider Fees" in the RFPs is not in accord with Judge Pitts' MTD Order. However, the Court does not agree with the Defendant that "Rider Fee" must be limited to the specific rider that the Plaintiff purchased. The allegations in the Amended Complaint support a definition of "Rider Fees" limited to fees that provide additional features in the contract. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: "Rider Fees" will be limited to fees that provide additional features in the contract. In the Joint Statement, the Parties both recognize that only registered products remain at issue and that there are 18 such products, including the specific annuity purchased by the Plaintiff. The RFPs that address "Products," each provide the following definition: 'Indexed Annuity 403(b) Products' means 'a fixed annuity whose yield return is partially based on an equities Index.' Thus, the Plaintiff seeks discovery directed to all 18 registered products. The Defendant objects, arguing that discovery should be limited to only the annuity purchased by the Plaintiff, the SecurePlus Platinum annuity. The Defendant acknowledges that a plaintiff may bring claims for products it did not purchase, provided that plaintiff's claims are "substantially similar" to injuries suffered by putative class members, citing McKinney v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1141 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Judge Van Keulen notes that the harm articulated in the surviving allegations of the Amended Complaint arises out of undisclosed changes to rider fees, as defined here, applied to registered products. That is the harm allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff and, via the class allegations, putative class members. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: the Defendant's objection as to the scope of "Products" is overruled, and all 18 Indexed Annuity 403(b) Products are properly included in the RFPs. Judge Van Keulen says the Parties do not address the "Relevant Time Period" in the Joint Statement, though their competing definitions are clear on the face of the Plaintiff's RFPs and the Defendant's Responses. In the RFPs, the Plaintiff seeks documents from "June 26, 2018 to the Present." However, in the Joint Statement, the Plaintiff states that the period of her investment is "September 2019 through 2023." The Defendant, in its objections to the RFPs, asserts that the relevant time period is June 26, 2019, to June 26, 2023, without explanation. The current posture of the Amended Complaint, as informed by the MTD Order, dictates that the relevant time period would be that in which the Plaintiff and the putative class members suffered substantially similar injuries. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: discovery is limited to the period of Plaintiff's investment in the SecurePlus Platinum annuity. The Parties are to meet and confer regarding the exact temporal boundaries. The Defendant also objects to the breadth of RFP 7, 13 and 14 as disproportionate to the needs the case. Although the Plaintiff does not specifically respond to these concerns, the Court infers the Plaintiff's position from the arguments made in support of the scope of discovery as to fees and products. The Court's rulings on these issues are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ynrjru6 from PacerMonitor.com. MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces that, on April 15, 2025, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Complaint") on behalf of its client City of Orlando Police Officers' Pension Fund ("Orlando Police") against Manhattan Associates, Inc. ("Manhattan Associates" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MANH) and certain Manhattan Associates officers (collectively, "Defendants"). This action, which is captioned City of Orlando Police Officers' Pension Fundv. Manhattan Associates, Inc., No. 25-cv-2089 (N.D. Ga.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Manhattan Associates securities between July 24, 2024, and February 7, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint is related to a previously filed action against Manhattan Associates captioned Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., No. 25-cv-00992 (N.D. Ga.) (the "Prime Action"). The Prime Action was filed on February 25, 2025, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Manhattan Associates securities between October 22, 2024, and January 28, 2025. The Complaint expands upon the Prime Action by alleging a longer class period which includes additional alleged false and misleading statements and an additional disclosure of Defendants' fraud. Manhattan Associates is an Atlanta, Georgia based provider of inventory management software and related services. Manhattan Associates generates revenue through cloud-based software subscriptions, software licenses, maintenance contracts, hardware sales, and related services. The Company's Services segment is a critical part of Manhattan Associates' business, accounting for more than 50% of the Company's 2024 full-year revenue. Such services include advising and assisting customers in planning and implementing Manhattan Associates' solutions. During the Class Period, Defendants touted services as an ongoing strength for Manhattan Associates while claiming that cloud sales were fueling the growth of its services business. Defendants also made projections concerning Manhattan Associates' expected 2025 revenue while expressing confidence in the Company's ability to forecast guidance despite macroeconomic fluctuations. Such claims were materially false and misleading and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Manhattan Associates' business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) customer delays and deferrals were resulting in a slowdown to the Company's services revenue growth; (ii) as customers switched from on-premise to cloud-based software, they utilized fewer of Manhattan Associates' services; and (iii) as a result of the forgoing, Defendants' positive statements about Manhattan Associates' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis. The truth began to emerge on January 28, 2025. On that date Manhattan Associates reported its fourth quarter and full-year 2024 financial results and announced reduced 2025 revenue guidance. The Company attributed these results and lowered guidance largely to a decline in its service revenue. On this news, Manhattan Associates' stock price dropped $72.26 per share, or 24.5 percent, to close at $222.84 per share on January 29, 2025. The truth was further revealed to the market on February 10, 2025, when the Company announced that its chief executive officer, Eddie Capel, was retiring that same week. On this news, the price of Manhattan Associates' stock price dropped another $23.20, or 11.5 percent, to close at $177.70 per share on February 10, 2025. Pursuant to the notice published on February 26, 2025, in connection with the filing of the Prime Action, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, if you purchased Manhattan Associates securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the proposed "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff in these related securities actions, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia no later than April 28, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Connor Boehme, Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780 or via email at cboehme@labaton.com to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of Lead Plaintiff or your interest in this matter. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this class action lawsuit. You can view a copy of the Complaint online here. Contact Connor Boehme, Esq. Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP (212) 907-0780 cboehme@labaton.com [GN] MARK D WALDRON: E.D. Washington Dismisses Dam Suit With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismisses with prejudice the lawsuit captioned JUN DAM, Plaintiff v. MARK D. WALDRON, Chapter 7 Panel Trustee; PAMELA M. EGAN, Attorney to Chapter 7 Trustee; POTOMAC LAW GROUP PLLC; and GIGA WATT BANKRUPTCY ESTATE, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00417-SAB (E.D. Wash.). Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint, and related Motion for Judicial Notice. The Plaintiff is pro se. The Defendant is represented by Pamela Egan. The motion was heard without oral argument. The Giga Watt Project was formed to build and run a large-scale cryptocurrency mining operation. As part of the project, Giga Watt sold so-called "WTT Tokens" that entitled a token purchaser to use electricity generated by the Giga Watt facility to mine and generate cryptocurrency. The sales proceeds from the WTT Tokens totaled more than $22 million, which was held by Perkins Coie LLP in an escrow account. After the initial sale of tokens was complete, Perkins provided refunds to some purchasers, paying them from the escrow fund. Perkins subsequently transferred $21.6 million to Giga Watt entities, and by Feb. 22, 2018, the escrow account was depleted. Giga Watt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Nov. 19, 2018, in the Eastern District of Washington ("the Bankruptcy Case"). Defendant Mark D. Waldron ("Trustee Waldron") was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee on Jan. 24, 2019. On Nov. 30, 2020, Trustee Waldron commenced an adversary proceeding (the "Adversary Proceeding") against Perkins alleging that Perkins's disbursement of the escrow funds violated a fiduciary duty that resulted in Giga Watt's collapse. On Dec. 15, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the employment of Defendant Potomac Law Group ("PLG") as special litigation counsel in the Adversary Proceeding. Pursuant to this employment, PLG was entitled to a 30% contingency fee of any recoveries obtained up to $10 million and a 25% contingency fee of any recoveries obtained that were greater than $10 million, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. On Dec. 16, 2020, Plaintiff Jun Dam filed a class action lawsuit in this Court (the "Class Action Suit"). The class members consisted of individuals, who had purchased WTT Tokens, and the class was represented by two law firms: Blood, Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP and the Western Washington Law Group, PLLP. ("Class Counsel"). PLG proceeded to work on the Adversary Proceeding for approximately three and a half years without objection--over one year of which was spent negotiating with Perkins and Class Counsel. They ultimately reached an agreement to settle both the Adversary Proceeding and the Class Action Suit (the "Settlement Agreement"), wherein Perkins agreed to pay $3 million to the bankruptcy estate and $4.5 million to the class members. On Oct. 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement. On Feb. 2, 2024, this Court entered a preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The class members were allowed to object or opt-out, but none did, and this Court then entered final approval of the Settlement Agreement on May 23, 2024. The Settlement Agreement defines a "Released Claim" as "any and all actions, claims, demands, rights, suits, and causes of action of whatever kind or nature against the Released Parties . . . ." It further defines "Released Parties" as the bankruptcy estate, Trustee Waldron, and "agents and attorneys" of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, it defines a "Releasing Party" as "Plaintiff and each and every Class Member." Under the Settlement Agreement's release clause, each Releasing Party was deemed to have waived any Released Claim against any Released Party. On July 26, 2024, PLG filed its final fee application, seeking $900,000 (i.e., 30% of the $3 million adversary proceeding settlement), plus $1,648.15 in expenses. However, on Aug. 22, 2024, Dam filed an objection, asking the Bankruptcy Court not to disburse any funds from the bankruptcy estate to PLG. On Sept. 17, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court granted PLG's application over Dam's objection, noting that counsel for PLG indicated that she spent 2,536.8 hours working on the Adversary Proceeding and that her typical rate is $600. Thus, PLG estimated its services were valued at $1,522,080 and the Bankruptcy Court found that the requested $900,000 was reasonable. The fees were paid to PLG on Sept. 19, 2024. On Dec. 13, 2024, Dam filed a civil Complaint in this matter (the "Civil Suit"), alleging that Trustee Waldron and PLG engaged in fraudulent conduct, which led to the Bankruptcy Court awarding the fees in error. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion, asking this Court to dismiss the Civil Suit because, among other issues, Dam's claims were void as a violation of the Bankruptcy Court's automatic stay. The same day, the Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to take judicial notice of several docket entries in support of their motion to dismiss. The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of filings in the Bankruptcy Case, associated appeals before this Court, and the Adversary Proceeding. Judge Bastian finds that the request is appropriate, and grants the motion for judicial notice. The Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this action without prejudice because (1) the Plaintiff's attempt to impose a constructive trust on the Perkins $3 million settlement proceedings and to otherwise recover those proceeds are void as an attempt to recover property of the estate and from the estate; (2) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief from the stay; (3) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Trustee Waldron and PLG because the Plaintiff failed to obtain the Bankruptcy Court's permission to sue Trustee Waldron and PLG; (4) the Plaintiff fails to state a claim because Trustee Waldron and PLG are immune and the claims are released; and (5) the Complaint fails to establish personal jurisdiction over and fails to state a claim against the "Giga Watt Bankruptcy Estate" because the Giga Watt Bankruptcy Estate lacks the capacity to be sued. The Defendants assert amending the Complaint would be futile because the Plaintiff cannot remedy the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Trustee Waldron or PLG's immunity, the release, or the estate's lack of capacity to be sued. The Court agrees. Judge Bastian opines that the Complaint constitutes a violation of the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy Case and is, therefore, void. Moreover, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Trustee Waldron and PLG. Finally, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court finds that granting leave to amend would be futile because additional allegations will not remedy the lack of subject matter jurisdiction or will state claims against the Defendants who are not subject to lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice, and Motion to Dismiss Complaint. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The remaining motions are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff and defense counsel, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/538mjdvu from PacerMonitor.com. MURAD LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MURAD, LLC, Case No. 1 1:25-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, 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. Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.murad.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant operates the Murad online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment. The Defendant's interactive Website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: skincare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. Defendant’s interactive Website advertises, markets and/or operates in the State of New York and across the United States. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NEW MILANI: Jackson Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NEW MILANI GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02915 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.milanicosmetics.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The 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. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant offers the commercial website, www.milanicosmetics.com, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NEW YORK CITY: Stephen Insists Being Class Member in Jones Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York received a letter from a pro se litigant and settlement class member in the lawsuit titled LLOYD JONES, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07577-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y.). The Court received the attached a letter from Mr. Daryl E. Stephen. The letter responds to the City's letter dated March 17, 2025. The City is directed to reply to Mr. Stephen's letter by April 23, 2025. The Clerk is requested to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Stephen at 1316 Sterling Pl. Apt. 1R, in Brooklyn, NY 11213. Mr. Stephen, a pro se litigant in the matter of Jones v. The City of New York, wrote to Judge Koeltl to bring to the Court's attention that his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated. He contends that he has been discriminated against by the Settlement Administrator and the City of New York, thereby, being denied his rightful status as a member of the settlement class in the case. On March 17, 2025, Mr. Stephen says he received a letter from the Office of Peter G. Farrell ("Exhibit A"), wherein Mr. Farrell asserts that Mr. Stephen is not listed as a member of the "class list" under the Settlement Agreement. While the definition of the "class list"--which, as stated, includes individuals released by the Department of Corrections (DOC) under the "Bail Paid" ("BP") release code--may support that assertion, Mr. Stephen insists that this definition does not preclude his status as a member of the settlement class. According to the Settlement Agreement in Jones v. The City of New York, a class member is defined as any individual, who does not file a valid and timely opt-out, Mr. Stephen says he timely filed his inclusion in the class action and, accordingly, should be recognized as a class member. Mr. Farrell's letter further indicates that Mr. Stephen is not a "presumptive member" of the class. The term "presumptive member" applies to those individuals automatically considered class members based on the release code documented in the Inmate Information System (IIS). Although his record does not reflect the "BP" release code, Mr. Stephen insists that it shows a release code of "PAR" (parole) as evidenced in the inmate history (Exhibit B). Mr. Stephen says he was never on parole during his custody nor at the time of his release from DOC custody. He believes this erroneous classification is the result of a negligent and inaccurate data entry by the DOC, which has prejudiced his ability to be recognized as a valid member of the settlement class. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement clearly defines a class member as any person who: (a.) was in the custody of the DOC; and (b.) was released from DOC custody upon payment of bail during the Class Period; and (c.) experienced a delay in their release from custody after bail was paid. Mr. Stephen points out that he meets all three criteria and, therefore, should be considered a member of the settlement class. In light of the foregoing, Mr. Stephen requests, among other things, that the Court review the discriminatory practices regarding the recording of his release information and the consequent exclusion from the class list. Additionally, he requests relief that may include a determination of his status as a class member. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4t7ck22p from PacerMonitor.com. NISSAN NORTH: Agrees to Settle Defective CVT Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Nissan has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain Nissan Murano and Maxima vehicles are equipped with a defective continuously variable transmission (CVT). The settlement benefits consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2015-2018 Nissan Murano or a 2016-2018 Nissan Maxima. According to the class action lawsuit, the CVT in certain Nissan Murano and Maxima vehicles is defective and can lead to poor performance or complete failure. The plaintiffs claim that Nissan knew about the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers. Nissan is an automotive manufacturer that sells vehicles under the Nissan and Infiniti brands. The automaker has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the CVT class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Nissan class action settlement, class members can receive a warranty extension, reimbursement, a vehicle voucher and other benefits. The settlement extends the new vehicle limited warranty for the transmission assembly and automatic transmission control unit to 84 months or 84,000 miles, whichever comes first. This extension provides coverage for the transmission assembly, valve body, torque converter and other components. Class members can receive reimbursement for prior repairs if they paid for qualifying repairs after their original warranty expired but before the new warranty extension took effect. If the repairs were performed by a Nissan dealer, class members can be fully reimbursed. If repairs were performed by a non-Nissan facility, class members can be reimbursed up to $5,000. Class members can be reimbursed for multiple repairs. Class members who had two or more transmission replacements or repairs during their ownership can receive a $1,500 voucher. This voucher can be used toward the purchase or lease of a new Nissan or Infiniti vehicle. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 3, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Nissan class action settlement is scheduled for July 18, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 3, 2025, or within 30 days of a qualifying repair. Who's Eligible Current and former owners and lessees of model year 2015-2018 Nissan Murano or 2016-2018 Nissan Maxima vehicles equipped with a CVT who purchased or leased their vehicles before April 4, 2025. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of qualifying repairs, such as receipts, work orders and credit card statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/03/2025 Case Name Beaver, et al. v. Nissan North America Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00785, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Final Hearing 07/18/2025 Settlement Website MuranoMaximaCVTSettlement.com Claims Administrator Beaver v. Nissan North America Inc. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 admin@MuranoMaximaCVTsettlement.com (888) 726-1378 Class Counsel Melissa S. Weiner PEARSON WARSHAW LLP Natalie Finkelman Bennett MILLER SHAH LLP Cody R. Padgett CAPSTONE LAW APC Lawrence Deutsch BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Norberto J. Cisneros MADDOX & CISNEROS LLP Mark Greenstone GREENSTONE LAW APC J. Gerard Stranch IV STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel E. Paul Cauley Jr. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP [GN] NORDIC WARE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Made in USA Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Nordic Ware, Inc. of misrepresenting that its aluminum bakeware products are made in the United States. According to the 24-page lawsuit, the company's product packaging bears explicit claims that its aluminum bakeware is "American made," "made in the USA" or "made in America." The representations appear alongside an image of the American flag and are sometimes stamped into the products themselves, the class action suit says. However, contrary to these representations, all, or virtually all, of the aluminum and bauxite used to manufacture the bakeware is obtained from outside of the United States, the case alleges. Nordic Ware has itself admitted that the primary component used to manufacture its products is aluminum imported from Canada, the complaint asserts. In addition, the filing contends that it is "virtually impossible" to source U.S.-mined bauxite, the raw material for aluminum, given that domestically mined bauxite ore hasn't been used to make aluminum since around 1981. "Without aluminum (and bauxite) sourced from outside the United States, [Nordic Ware] would not be able to manufacturer [sic] its Products, all of which are aluminum based," the suit relays. The Nordic Ware lawsuit claims the deceptive marketing is designed to capitalize on consumer willingness to pay more for American-made products than items sourced from other countries. The plaintiff, a New York resident, says he relied on the U.S.-made representations when purchasing the Nordic Ware products at issue. The man alleges that he, like other consumers, would not have paid as much for the aluminum bakeware, or bought it at all, had he known the items were falsely advertised. The case asserts that in response to a recent "surge in litigation relating to Made in USA labeling," the company began rolling out new labeling with a qualified claim that the aluminum bakeware is "made in America with domestic and imported materials." The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased a Nordic Ware aluminum bakeware product within the applicable statute of limitations period through the date the company implemented the qualified U.S.-made representations. [GN] NORTH DAKOTA: Glaum's Claims for Money & Punitive Damages Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Clare R. Hochhalter of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota dismisses the Plaintiff's claims for money damages and punitive damages in the lawsuit styled Joseph E. Glaum, Plaintiff v. Colby Braun, Warden Joseph Joyce, Deputy Warden Shaun Fode, Cassandra Upton, Tammy Homan, Lacey Fischer, Heather Davis, Brandon Gumke, and Kristin Heath, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00146-CRH (D.N.D.). Plaintiff Joseph E. Glaum, a prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, seeks to bring lawsuits against the Defendants, who are officials and employees of the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR). Glaum has consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Judge Hochhalter notes that though Glaum lists the DOCR and North Dakota State Penitentiary (NDSP) in his caption, Glaum did not identify those entities as Defendants in either the Complaint or Amended Complaint. Even if he had, Judge Hochhalter explains that states and state agencies, like the DOCR, are not "persons" amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The State of North Dakota has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Furthermore, NDSP is a building, not a suable entity. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to terminate the DOCR and NDSP as Defendants. Mr. Glaum submitted a Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) packet and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on July 30, 2024. The Court granted IFP status and Glaum's complaint was filed. On Sept. 9, 2024, prior to screening the complaint, Glaum requested an extension of time to submit an amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and specifically advised Glaum that "an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint" and would "supersede, not supplement, his current complaint." On Oct. 10, 2024, Glaum requested a second extension to submit an amended complaint and further requested the Court certify a class action and appoint qualified counsel to represent the class. Shortly thereafter, he requested a stay while he considered whether to proceed with this action. The Court granted the request and stayed this matter until Dec. 6, 2024. On Dec. 11, 2024, Glaum submitted an incomplete prisoner litigation packet, which was returned to him. On Dec. 26, 2024, Glaum filed an amended complaint. The Court lifted the stay on Dec. 30, 2024, and denied the motion to certify a class and to appoint counsel. On Feb. 3, 2025, Glaum filed a notice of intent to supplement the amended complaint. The Court entered an order allowing a supplement. The supplement to the amended complaint was filed on March 5, 2025. Judge Hochhalter says the matter is now ready for initial screening under Section 1915A. Mr. Glaum primarily complains of interference with legal mail, lack of access to telephone and email communication with his father, William Glaum (William), who holds power of attorney (POA), inability to use the telephone to contact potential witnesses for his state post-conviction relief proceedings, and inability to obtain and review recordings. Mr. Glaum asserts Securus e-messages to his father have been delayed and blocked. He further alleges his ability to pursue other civil cases has been interfered with "through baseless targeted and malicious sanctions and claims of violation of facility policies." He alleges other prisoners face similar obstacles based on the DOCR's "unwritten custom/policy." He identifies nine issues in the amended complaint. The supplement alleges additional facts supporting some of the original issues and asserts several new issues for resolution. The issues alleged by Glaum can be grouped into eight types of claims. First, is a lack of access to court and interference with mail claim involving his underlying criminal conviction. Second, is a lack of access to court and interference with mail claim involving other civil suits pending in state court involving Rebecca Woodrow and Michael Drake. Third, is a claim of mail tampering. Fourth, Glaum is claiming harassing disciplinary write-ups, denial of due process in the disciplinary hearings, and sanctions that denied him access to the library and computers. Fifth, Glaum complains he did not receive a response to a grievance he made against Unit Manager Lacey Fischer. Sixth, Glaum requests the Court to vacate a state court judgment because the judge refused to recuse herself. Seventh, Glaum claims a new policy restricting case managers from printing docket reports for inmates is "direct and purposeful interference" with litigation and constructively denies him access to the courts. Eighth, is a claim for destruction of property. Glaum claims Deputy Warden Shaun Fode denied him two legal textbooks that were ordered by his father and asserts the books were destroyed while Glaum's appeal was pending. For relief, Glaum seeks an injunction to compel the Defendants to allow him to receive correspondence and publications from Cato Institute and to prohibit the Defendants from interfering with his outgoing legal mail and other documents. He requests an injunction to relieve him from undue oppression, and to stop unjustified disciplinary actions. The Plaintiff seeks additional access to computers or to purchase his own laptop computer and obtain USB thumb drives or DVD recordings for his case. He also requests that NDSP place a copy machine in the prison library, provide legal topic-based books, and allow inmates to mail up to five envelopes a month at no cost. Finally, he demands reimbursement for the costs of litigating this case, an award for his direct and indirect losses from the Defendants' interference in his other cases, and punitive damages of $300,000. Mr. Glaum brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and alleges a Section 1985 conspiracy. Before turning to the Section 1983 claims, the Court addresses the conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Section 1985 is a post-Civil War statute that generally proscribes private conspiracies to interfere with the civil rights of others. Importantly, a racial or class-based discriminatory animus is an element of a Section 1985 civil rights conspiracy claim. Because no racial or class-based allegations are present here, Judge Hochhalter holds that this claim is dismissed. Mr. Glaum seeks to sue the Defendants in their official and individual capacities. Because Glaum may not recover compensatory or punitive damages against North Dakota, its agencies, or any state employee in their official capacities, Judge Hochhalter holds that such claims for damages are dismissed. Though an award of monetary relief is unavailable against the Defendants in their official capacity, Judge Hochhalter notes that the Eleventh Amendment generally does not bar claims for prospective injunctive relief against public officials in their official capacities. Judge Hochhalter holds that Glaum may be entitled to seek injunctive relief to the extent any of his claims state a plausible ongoing violation of his constitutional rights. Turning to Glaum's Section 1983 claims, the Court liberally construes his complaint as presenting several claims for interference with the free flow of mail. These claims fall into the general categories of incoming and outgoing mail. The First Amendment right to free flow of incoming and outgoing mail is in addition to the right of access to the courts. Judge Hochhalter notes that courts have consistently afforded greater protection to legal mail than to non-legal mail, as well as greater protection to outgoing mail than to incoming mail. Legal mail is defined as mail to or from an inmate's attorney and identified as such. Judge Hochhalter opines that the mere fact that a letter comes from a legal source is insufficient to indicate that it is confidential and requires special treatment. At this early stage, the Court is inclined to allow Glaum to proceed with a First Amendment free flow of mail claim. Generally, sporadic and short-term delays in receiving mail are insufficient to state a First Amendment claim. Liberally construed, Glaum's allegations assert more than "sporadic" delays in the mailing system. Instead, his allegations involve NDSP policies that prohibit inmates from receiving original documents without satisfactory alternatives and intentional withholding of mail. Judge Hochhalter opines that it may be that there are legitimate penological reasons for these limitations, but the Court is unable to make that determination without further information. Accordingly, Glaum will be allowed to proceed with Issues One, Two, Three, and Four insofar as those relate to violations of the First Amendment right to free flow of mail. Liberally construed, Glaum's complaint also alleges mail tampering in Issue Five. In one incident, Glaum alleges the intended contents of outgoing correspondence did not arrive to the recipient. He alleges two isolated incidents involving mail to Verizon, not an ongoing practice. Judge Hochhalter holds that isolated incidents of mail tampering do not state a violation of First Amendment rights. Furthermore, neither of these mailings constitutes legal mail because they were not sent to Glaum's counsel. Accordingly, Glaum's claim for mail tampering in Issue Five is dismissed for failure to state a claim. The allegations in Issues One, Two, Three, Four, Nine, and Ten can also be liberally construed to assert Glaum has been denied the right of access to court. Judge Hochhalter finds that it is apparent none of his asserted lack of access to court claims survives screening. First, Glaum has not alleged to have suffered an "actual injury." Second, any impediments or difficulties Glaum has in pursuing his pending civil cases are "incidental and perfectly constitutional consequences of conviction and incarceration." Accordingly, the Court dismissed Glaum's claims for lack of access to courts for failure to state a plausible claim. Judge Hochhalter holds, among other things, that Glaum will not be allowed to proceed with individual capacity claims. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint or Supplement to the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under Twombly/Iqbal. In accordance with the reasons in the Order, Judge Hochhalter rules as follows. The claims for money damages and punitive damages against the Defendants in their official and individual capacities are dismissed. Glaum is permitted to proceed to obtain injunctive relief only with a First Amendment claim for interference with free flow of mail against Director Colby Braun and Warden Joseph Joyce in their official capacity. All other claims are dismissed. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendants Shaun Fode, Cassandra Upton, Tammy Homan, Lacey Fischer, Heather Davis, Brandon Gumke, and Kristin Heath. The Clerk's office is directed to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint, the Supplement to the Amended Complaint, this Order, and the Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons forms upon Defendants Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/49knz5v4 from PacerMonitor.com. RB GLOBAL: Faces Swanson Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kris Swanson Construction LLC, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RB Global, Inc.; Rouse Services LLC; United Rentals, Inc.; Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.; HERC Rentals Inc.; H&E Equipment Services, Inc.; and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04236 (N. D. Ill., April 17, 2025) is a civil antitrust action on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities who rent construction equipment in the United States from any Rental Equipment Defendant or from any of Defendants' co-conspirators beginning on at least March 31, 2021 and running through the present. The Defendants in this action consist of RB Global and its wholly owned subsidiary Rouse, as well as the major construction equipment rental companies in this country, namely United Rentals Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., HERC Rentals, Inc., HERC Holdings Inc., H&E Equipment Services, Inc., and Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC (collectively the Rental Equipment Defendants) The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy Defendants' price-fixing agreement, which Defendants accomplished through Rouse's (1) collection of detailed, invoice-level transactional and inventory data on a standardized basis and (2) sharing resulting computer screens tailored to promote the real-time Rouse Rental Insights price (RRI Price) or better for the $50-plus billion construction equipment rental industry. Accordingly, by buying and merging with hundreds of their competitors, the Rental Equipment Defendants have become substantially larger than the "independents." One Defendant's CEO said "we" think "the big getting bigger is good for the industry." Before 2011, the construction equipment rental industry was fragmented and characterized by price competition. Each rental company's unilateral interest in competing for rental volume led to lower prices. In 2010, a former CEO of Hertz Equipment Rental Corp (now HERC Rentals) called for industry changes, writing that the "pricing pain that is being felt throughout the equipment rental industry right now is largely self-inflicted," due to "poor rate management." Foreshadowing, at least, developments to come, he pointed to "a wealth of technology available today," that "can bring genuine discipline to rate management." Rouse and the Rental Equipment Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rates independently, the Rental Equipment Defendants, who control much of the U.S. construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to Rouse as a common entity. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Equipment Defendants eliminate price competition between themselves. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota with its principal place of business in Northfield, Minnesota. The Plaintiff rented construction equipment directly from one or more Defendants and/or co-conspirators during the Class Period and suffered antitrust injury as a result of the violations alleged in this Complaint. RB Global is a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges, that is legally domiciled in Canada with U.S. headquarters at Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite No. 1000, Westchester, Illinois. RB Global describes itself as "a leading global marketplace that provides value-added insights, services, and transaction solutions for buyers and sellers of commercial assets and vehicles worldwide." Rouse is a wholly owned subsidiary of RB Global. Rouse maintains its headquarters in Beverly Hills, California. RB Global acquired Rouse in 2020 for $275 million.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Pozan, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. Kira Q. Le., , Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 N. Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 205-8968 E-mail: kjpozan@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com kqle@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com REALOGY HOLDINGS: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $20-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that the parent company of Coldwell Banker, Realogy Holdings Corp., has agreed to a $20 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited phone calls. The Realogy settlement benefits individuals who received two or more telemarketing calls from a Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agent using a Mojo, PhoneBurner and/or Storm dialer within a 12-month period on a phone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days between June 11, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2020. The class action settlement also benefits individuals who received a call from a Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agent that included an artificial or prerecorded message between June 11, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2020. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit say Realogy Holdings Corp. violated the TCPA with unsolicited phone calls that used a dialer system and included prerecorded messages. According to the Realogy TCPA class action lawsuit, these calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which requires businesses to obtain express written consent before contacting consumers for telemarketing purposes. Realogy Holdings Corp., now known as Anywhere Real Estate, is a real estate company that owns several brands, including Coldwell Banker, Century 21, Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate, ERA and Sotheby's International Realty. Realogy hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $20 million class action settlement to resolve the TCPA allegations. Under the terms of the Coldwell Banker real estate call settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund, estimated at around $281 if 15% of class members submit a valid claim. Actual payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 3, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Realogy settlement is scheduled for Aug. 28, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 3, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received two or more telemarketing calls from a Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agent using a Mojo, PhoneBurner and/or Storm dialer within a 12-month period on a phone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days between June 11, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2020 AND individuals who received a call from a Coldwell Banker-affiliated real estate agent that included an artificial or prerecorded message between June 11, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2020. Potential Award $281 (estimated) Proof of Purchase Telephone number(s) that received calls. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/03/2025 Case Name Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Final Hearing 08/28/2025 Settlement Website RealogyTCPA.com Claims Administrator Realogy TCPA Settlement P.O. Box 4068 Portland OR 97208-4068 info@RealogyTCPA.com (866) 991-0891 Class Counsel George Granade Michael Reese REESE LLP Hassan A. Zavareei Sabita J. Soneji TYCKO & ZAVEREEI LLP Rachel E. Kaufman KAUFMAN P.A. Stefan Coleman LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN Defense Counsel Calvin E. Davis Aaron P. Rudin Candice S. Nam GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP [GN] SAN JUAN REGIONAL: Faces Kremitz FLSA Suit Over Bonus Pay Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY KERMITZ, individually and for others similarly situated v. SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00377 (D.N.M., April 17, 2025) is class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from San Juan. Accordingly, San Juan's bonus pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate Kermitz and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration -- for the hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. San Juan employed Kermitz as an RN flight nurse from approximately November 2021 until July 2024. Throughout his employment, San Juan classified Kermitz as non-exempt and paid him by the hour. Throughout his employment, San Juan has paid Kermitz under its bonus scheme. Kermitz brings the class and collective action on behalf on himself, and other similarly situated San Juan employees paid under its bonus pay scheme. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly San Juan employees who were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay during the last three years through final resolution of this action (the "FLSA Collective Members)." The putative New Mexico class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly San Juan employees who were paid a bonus not included in their regular rate of pay who worked in New Mexico (the New Mexico Class Members). San Juan is a regional hospital that "offers a broad range of inpatient, outpatient and emergency care services, as well as primary and specialty care through [their] San Juan Health Partners clinics."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SHIELD PROTECTIVE: Neugebauer Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY NEUGEBAUER, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. SHIELD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER SCHMALING, Case No. 25-CV-553 (E.D. Wisc., April 17, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or Wisconsin law. Shield employed the Plaintiff as a security guard. Defendant Shiel subjected its security guards, including the Plaintiff, to common policies or practices, including only paying security guards their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Mr. Schmaling controlled Shield 's pay and other human resources practices, including its practice of paying security guards their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, the Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA and Wisconsin law by failing to pay security guards at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Mr. Neugebauer is an adult resident of Kenosha County, Wisconsin. The FLSA Overtime Collective is defined as: "All persons who have been employed as security guards by Shield Protective Services, LLC, and who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the three years from the date of this complaint." The Wisconsin Overtime Class is defined as: "All persons who have been employed as security guards by Shield Protective Services, LLC, and who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the two years from the date of this complaint." Shield operates a business that provides private security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Connor J. Clegg, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 5150 North Port Washington Road Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 E-mail: cclegg@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com SIMILASAN CORP: Agrees to Settle Eye Drop Class Suit for $3.575MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Similasan has agreed to pay $3.575 million to resolve claims that its homeopathic eye drops were deceptively labeled and advertised as homeopathic. The Similasan eye drop settlement benefits consumers who purchased Similasan homeopathic eye drops or private-label homeopathic eye drops at CVS or Walgreens for personal use between Sept. 11, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2025. The settlement applies to the following products: -- Similasan Dry Eye Relief -- Similasan Complete Eye Relief -- Similasan Allergy Eye Relief -- Similasan Kids Allergy Eye Relief -- Similasan Red Eye Relief -- Similasan Pink Eye Relief -- Similasan Kids Pink Eye Relief -- Similasan Aging Eye Relief -- Similasan Computer Eye Relief -- Similasan Stye Eye Relief -- Similasan Pink Eye Nighttime Gel -- Similasan Dry Eye Nighttime Gel -- CVS Pink Eye Drops -- Walgreens Stye Eye Drops -- Walgreens Pink Eye Drops -- Walgreens Allergy Eye Drops. The settlement resolves allegations made in the Similasan false advertising class action lawsuit that the eye drops are deceptively labeled and advertised as homeopathic. The eye drops are also allegedly misleadingly marketed as "sterile" and fail to disclose the risk of silver sulfate. Similasan is a homeopathic remedy company that sells various products, including eye drops, under its own brand and private label lines at CVS and Walgreens. Similasan hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.575 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Similasan eye drop settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of covered products they purchased and whether they have proof of purchase. Without proof of purchase, class members can claim up to four covered products for a total payment of $10. With proof of purchase, class members can claim an unlimited number of covered products and receive $2.50 per product. Payments may be subject to pro rata increases or reductions depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. If any funds remain in the settlement after payments are distributed, the money will be donated to The Public Justice Foundation. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 27, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Similasan settlement is scheduled for July 17, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 15, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased certain Similasan, CVS or Walgreens products between Sept. 11, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2025. The settlement covers Similasan Dry Eye Relief, Similasan Complete Eye Relief, Similasan Allergy Eye Relief, Similasan Kids Allergy Eye Relief, Similasan Red Eye Relief, Similasan Pink Eye Relief, Similasan Kids Pink Eye Relief, Similasan Aging Eye Relief, Similasan Computer Eye Relief, Similasan Stye Eye Relief, Similasan Pink Eye Nighttime Gel, Similasan Dry Eye Nighttime Gel, CVS Pink Eye Drops, Walgreens Stye Eye Drops, Walgreens Pink Eye Drops and Walgreens Allergy Eye Drops. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Store receipts, packaging or any other contemporaneous record of purchase Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/15/2025 Case Name Plowden, et al. v. Similasan Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-02511-DDD-STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Final Hearing 07/17/2025 Settlement Website HomeopathicEyeDropSettlement.com Claims Administrator Homeopathic Eye Drop Settlement 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 (855) 596-4080 Class Counsel Melissa S. Weiner PEARSON WARSHAW LLP Rachel Soffin Nick Suciu MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Jonas Jacobson DOVEL & LUNER LLP William H. Anderson HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC Defense Counsel John C. Dougherty Arameh O'Boyle Katherine Galle DENTONS US LLP Greg Hearing Melissa Jones GORDON REES [GN] SINOVAC BIOTECH: Faces Class Suit Over Yin's Take Over Attempt -------------------------------------------------------------- MW GESTION, MW OPTIMUM, ALTIMEO PARTICIPATIONS, and CYRILLE PICHOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SINOVAC BIOTECH LTD., WEIDONG YIN, NAN WANG, SIMON ANDERSON, YUK LAM LO, KENNETH LEE, MENG MEI, and SHAN FU Case No. 2025-0417 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 17, 2025) seeks to redress the harm that the Defendants have caused to Sinovac's shareholders and the Company arising out of Yin's efforts to take control of the Company and further benefit his buyer group and Company insiders, at the expense of minority shareholders. The action arises out of the attempt by Defendant Weidong Yin, Sinovac's CEO, to take over the Company for his personal benefit, to the detriment of minority shareholders. On Jan. 30, 2016, Yin, Sinovac's longtime CEO, President, and Chairman of its Board of Directors, offered to buy Sinovac for $6.18 per share, or $350 million. On Feb. 3, 2016, a competing group (the Sinobioway Group) topped Yin's proposal by offering $7 per share. Sinovac responded by enacting a rights agreement containing a "poison pill" to protect Yin's attempt to buy the Company and discourage competing bids (the Rights Agreement). Rather than consider higher offers from the Sinobioway Group, on June 26, 2017, Sinovac hastily entered into a definitive agreement for Yin’s group to buy the Company for $7.00 per share, valuing Sinovac at approximately $401.8 million, pending shareholder approval. Sinovac did not even tell shareholders that the Sinobioway Group immediately made a higher offer until the Company rejected that offer three months later, says the suit. Sinovac is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of vaccines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael Grunfeld POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com - and - F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. , Esq. Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq. 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com tlydon@ashbygeddes.com SIRIUS XM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Posternock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Sirius XM Radio Inc.'s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned as ROBYN POSTERNOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-02680-MAS-RLS (D.N.J.). Sirius XM is a satellite radio and internet provider with more than 33 million customers nationwide. Plaintiff is a former subscriber of Sirius XM who used Sirius XM from 2021 to 2023. She purchased a new vehicle in 2020 which included a Sirius XM trial subscription. As part of this promotion, Sirtus XM mailed Plaintiff a physical "Welcome Kit," which included a letter and a hard copy of Sirtus XM's Customer Agreement. Upon the expiration of her free trial, Plaintiff became a paid subscriber to Sirtus XM in 2021. In May 2021, she chatted with a Sirius XM representative to extend her subscription, and the representative informed her that her subscription would be governed by the terms of the Customer Agreement. That same day, after Plaintiff accepted "these terms" and confirmed her purchase, Sirtus XM sent Plaintiff a confirmation email, which stated that her subscription is governed by the Sirius XM Customer Agreement" and provided a hyperlink to the agreement. On three more occasions between 2021 and 2023, Plaintiff made changes to her subscription plan by either calling Sirius XM or using Sirtus XM's webchat service. Each time Plaintiff made a change to her subscription, she was asked to accept the Customer Agreement. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Sirius XM, alleging Sirius XM violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 56:8-1, et seg., the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 56:12-14, et seq., New Jersey Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, N.J.S.A. Sec. 2A:16-51, et seq., and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by failing to properly disclose certain fees. In response to the Complaint, Sirius XM filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, removing two of the named plaintiffs, and opposed the Motion, asserting that the arbitrability of the dispute was not apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint, and that the parties must be allowed to engage in limited discovery as to the validity of the parties' arbitration agreement. The Court granted Plaintiff's request for limited discovery regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. Upon completion of the limited discovery, Sirtus XM filed the instant renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings. Sirius XM contends that the Court should compel Plaintiff's claims to individual arbitration because the parties entered a contract with an unambiguous arbitration clause when Plaintiff became a Sirius XM subscriber and expressly accepted the Customer Agreement through webchat or over the phone. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, contending that while she formed a contract with Sirius XM during the telephone or smartphone chat sign up procedures, she never executed any clear waiver of her right to sue. The Court finds that that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff affirmatively accepted all of the terms of the Customer Agreement, including its mandatory arbitration provisions, when she expressly agreed to be bound by the Customer Agreement during the sign-up process. Based on the record, the Court finds that a reasonably prudent consumer in Plaintiff's position would have understood that by verbally assenting to these terms during the phone or webchat sign-up process, she was agreeing to be bound by the full Customer Agreement referenced by the Sirius XM representative. Plaintiff's continued use of Sirtus XM and repeated modification of her subscription support the Court's finding that Plaintiff understood and intended to be bound by the Customer Agreement. Because the Court finds there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Plaintiff expressly agreed to be bound by the Customer Agreement, the Court grants Sirius XM's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=42M0N5 from PacerMonitor.com. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Cordero Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dale A. Kimball of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL CORDERO, Plaintiff, vs. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE, INC., and SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-CV-575-DAK-CMR (D. Utah). Cordero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought this action against Defendants Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc. and Sportsman's Warehouse Holding, Inc., who operate, control, and manage the website Sportsmans.com. Cordero claims that Defendants violated California privacy and disclosure of protected information laws by sharing the contents of consumers' communications with the web tracking company, AddShoppers. Defendants move to dismiss Cordero's Class Action Complaint under FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California Trap and Trace Law. In the alternative, Defendants request that the court stay the matter, pending the outcome of rulings in similar cases addressing the same issues. Defendants argue that Cordero fails to establish Article III standing because he does not plead a concrete harm. They argue that Cordero fails to establish a concrete injury because he does not demonstrate how a cognizable harm occurred or how Sportsman's violated any traditionally recognized right. Defendants point out that Cordero does not allege facts demonstrating how the alleged collection of information about the last time he visited Sportsman's website caused harm. Cordero does not allege that Sportsman's obtained any specific personal information, such as his name, address, or credit card information. Instead, he claims that the mere capturing of when he last visited Defendants' website amounts to a collection of personal information because a third-party, AddShoppers, would know that he had been on Sportsman's website and could obtain information of what products he viewed. Cordero, however, alleges that the class members are harmed every time their personal information is used or shared in the AddShopper's network in a manner to which they did not consent. However, Cordero's allegations are fatally flawed because he makes no claims as to what personal information, as defined by the statute, was shared. The timestamp of his last visit to a website is not a cognizable harm. The Court finds the Complaint fails to allege how this would sufficiently rise to the level of any traditional recognized right as it is not legally protected personal information. According to the Court, because Cordero has not alleged that Defendants' conduct invaded any historically protected privacy interests recognized as a basis for a lawsuit in American courts, he has not sufficiently alleged an injury that could establish standing under Article III. Cordero also fails to establish how his alleged injury is fairly traceable to Defendants. He admits that he did not provide Sportsmans.com with personal information and then alleges that Defendants shared his personal information. Sharing the last time someone visited a website is not statutorily protected in California as protected personal information. If Cordero's injury is the sharing of PPI, it cannot be traced to Sportsman's, who never received PPI from Cordero. Therefore, the Court concludes that Cordero has also not established that his alleged injury is fairly traceable to Defendants. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Cordero's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Upy9J from PacerMonitor.com. TREACE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ If you suffered a loss on your Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (NASDAQ:TMCI) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/treace-medical-concepts-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=143749&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 8, 2023 and May 7, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) competition impacted the demand for and utilization of its primary product, the 3D bunion correction system, the "Lapiplasty"; (2) as a result, Treace Medical's revenue declined and the Company needed to accelerate its plans to offer a product that was an alternative to osteotomy (a surgical procedure that involves cutting and realigning a bone to improve its position or function); and (3) defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/treace-medical-concepts-inc-lawsuit-submission-form-2?prid=143749&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] TWITTER INC: Zeman Loses Bid to File Second Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned as JOHN ZEMAN, Plaintiff, v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01786-SI (N.D. Cal.). Defendants oppose the motion. Plaintiff seeks to add causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. He notes that these same claims are at issue in a potential class action suit (Cornet v. Twitter, Case No. 1:23-cv-00441-TMH (D. Del.)) where plaintiff is a putative class member. Plaintiff's counsel is co-counsel in Cornet. Plaintiff wants to add the claims here seemingly for two reasons. First, a trial has been scheduled in this case for Oct. 14, 2025 while Cornet will not be tried any time soon. Second, plaintiff expresses concern that he may somehow be precluded from the class in Cornet because he omitted these claims in his individual litigation. The Court finds neither of these reasons merit leave to amend at this stage of the proceedings. On Feb. 10, 2025, after plaintiff's attempt to create a class here faltered, the Court discussed the remaining case calendar with the parties, set discovery deadlines, and scheduled a trial for Oct. 14, 2025. Defendant scheduled to take plaintiff's deposition on April 23, 2025 and fact discovery closes on May 9, 2025. With these deadlines looming, Judge Illston holds that inserting additional claims into the litigation would be unfair and unnecessary when the claims remain live in a separate lawsuit. Further, to the extent that plaintiff is concerned his own lawsuit precludes his class participation in Cornet, defendant indicated it will stipulate that it will not raise the prior adjudication of this Action as a basis to exclude Plaintiff from any certified class in Cornet. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ntMROn from PacerMonitor.com. TYSON FOODS: Agrees to Settle Price Fixing Class Suit for $22.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brigette Honake of Top Class Actions reports that several chicken processors agreed to pay a combined $22.5 million to resolve claims they worked together to raise the price of chicken, adding to an existing settlement pool of $181 million. The raw chicken settlement benefits consumers who purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken from Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, George's, Peco, Fieldale, Mar-Jac or other chicken producers in California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 31, 2019. The raw chicken price-fixing settlement resolves claims that chicken producers worked together to raise and fix the price of chicken products. As a result of this alleged scheme, consumers were forced to overpay for chicken products, the class action lawsuit contends. The lawsuit includes claims against industry titans such as Tyson Foods and Pilgrim's Pride and smaller processors such as Foster Farms. The chicken producers haven't admitted any wrongdoing but previously agreed to a $181 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Now, additional chicken producers have agreed to $22.5 million in settlements, bringing the total settlement fund to $203.5 million. To fund these new raw chicken price fixing settlements, Harrison Poultry will pay $2.9 million, House of Raeford will pay $4.5 million, Koch Foods will pay $5 million, Mountaire will pay $3 million, O.K. Foods will pay $3.2 million, Sanderson Farms will pay $750,000 and Simmons will pay $3 million. Under the terms of the chicken settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for chicken products. Class members who have proof of purchase such as purchase information or receipts can receive a larger settlement payment than those with no proof of purchase. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 12, 2025. The final approval hearing for the chicken price-fixing settlement is scheduled for June 30, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members who have not filed a valid claim form with the settlement must do so by July 31, 2025. Claimants who previously filed before the additional funds were added do not need to file an additional claim. They may update a previous claim by contacting the settlement administrator. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased fresh or frozen raw chicken from Tyson Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, George's, Peco, Fieldale, Mar-Jac or other chicken producers in California, the District of Columbia and the states of FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, WI between Jan. 1, 2009, and July 31, 2019. Potential Award Pro rata payment based on amount of chicken bought and proof of purchase details. Proof of Purchase Purchase information and receipts may be needed to validate claims. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/31/2025 Case Name In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (End-User Consumer Action), Case No. 1:16-cv-08637, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Final Hearing 06/30/2025 Settlement Website OverchargedForChicken.com Claims Administrator Broiler Chicken Consumer Litigation c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173045 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@OverchargedForChicken.com (877) 888-5428 Class Counsel Shana E. Scarlett Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Brent W. Johnson Benjamin D. Brown Daniel H. Silverman Alison Deich COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Defense Counsel James F. Herbison Michael P. Mayer WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Charles C. Murphy Jr. VAUGHAN & MURPHY Carmine R. Zarlenga MAYER BROWN LLP Henry W. Jones Jr. JORDAN PRICE WALL GRAY JONES & CARLTON PLLC Stephen Novack Stephen J. Siegel Elizabeth C. Wolicki ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Amanda K. Wofford MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Lawrence Harris Heftman Margaret A. Hickey Kylie S. Wood Robert J. Wierenga Suzanne L. Wahl ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP Bourgon Reynolds ROSE LAW FIRM Megan Cunniff Church Eugene A. Sokoloff Jordan A. Rice Lauren F. Dayton Thomas P. Schubert MOLOLAMKEN LLP John P. Passarelli J.R. Carroll Jeffery M. Fletcher Stephen M. Dacus KUTAK ROCK LLP Danielle Foley Lisa Jose Fales Andrew Hernacki VENABLE LLP Christopher E. Ondeck PROSKAUER ROSE LLP John R. Elrod Vicki Bronson CONNER & WINTERS LLP Lynn H. Murray Laurie A. Novion SHOOK HARDY & BACON [GN] UNITED FURNITURE: Court Narrows Claims in Neal, et al. WARN Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Selene D. Maddox of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied in part and granted in part the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as TORIA NEAL, JAMES PUGH, KALVIN HOGAN, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS, ADV. PRO. NO.: 23-01005-SDM (Bankr. N.D. Miss.). The plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. UFI and its affiliates were in the business of manufacturing and distributing furniture from its facilities located in Mississippi, California, and North Carolina. This adversary proceeding arises from the abrupt termination of approximately 2,700 employees of UFI and its affiliates on Nov. 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a certified class of similarly situated former employees, bring this action mainly under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, U.S.C. Secs. 2101–2109 seeking damages for the Defendants' failure to provide the required 60 days' notice of a mass layoff or plant closure. In addition to UFI -- the direct employer -- the Plaintiffs assert that Belford, in his individual capacity and as trustee of the Separate Property Trust, the David A. Belford Irrevocable Trust, and Stage Capital are all jointly liable as a "single employer" with UFI under the WARN Act. On Nov. 21, 2022, without prior notice, UFI ceased operations and issued a mass layoff affecting its entire workforce. Shortly thereafter, several WARN Act class actions were filed, which were later consolidated in this Court. Following conversion of the bankruptcy case to Chapter 11, the Court appointed a Chapter 11 Trustee, who now serves as the Liquidating Trustee and is representing UFI's bankruptcy estate in this proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek a determination that Defendants David Belford and Stage Capital, LLC were a single employer with United Furniture Industries, Inc. under the WARN Act, thereby making them jointly and severally liable for damages. The non-UFI Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor, arguing that none of the non-UFI Defendants meet the single employer test and that they did not exercise the requisite control over UFI's employment decisions to be held liable under the WARN Act. The Trustee, while not seeking summary judgment, opposes the non-UFI Defendants' motion and asserts that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Belford and Stage Capital exercised sufficient operational control over UFI to warrant WARN Act liability. The Court concludes that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on most claims. Under the federal WARN Act, Belford cannot be held directly liable, but the Plaintiffs may still proceed with indirect state law liability theories. Disputed facts remain, however, as to whether Stage Capital and the Separate Property Trust functioned as a single employer with UFI. Summary judgment is therefore denied as to those parties. The Irrevocable Trust had no ownership interest or operational role in UFI and is entitled to summary judgment under both the federal and California WARN Acts. Under the Cal. WARN specifically, the Court adopts an "owner and operator" standard and finds that Belford, Stage Capital, and the Separate Property Trust may qualify as employers if they directly or indirectly operated UFI or ordered the mass layoff. These claims present factual disputes and must proceed to trial. The Court also finds no triable issues regarding unpaid PTO claims under Mississippi and North Carolina law, and summary judgment is granted to the non-UFI Defendants on those claims. The issue of priority status under the Bankruptcy Code is reserved for later proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jzy52u from PacerMonitor.com. About United Furniture Industries United Furniture Industries, Inc., manufactures and sells upholstery. It offers bonded leather and upholstery fabric recliners, reclining sofas and loveseats, sectionals, and sofa sleepers, as well as stationary sofas, loveseats, chairs, and ottomans. United Furniture Industries was subject to an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Case No. 22-13422) filed on Dec. 30, 2022. The petition was signed by alleged creditors Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Security Associates of Mississippi Alabama LLC, and V & B International, Inc. On Jan. 18, 2023, the court entered the order for relief, thereby, converting the case to one under Chapter 11. On Jan. 31, 2023, eight affiliates of United Furniture Industries filed for Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The affiliates are LS Logistics, LLC, Furniture Wood, Inc., UFI Transportation, LLC, United Wood Products, Inc., Associated Bunk Bed Company, FW Acquisition, LLC, UFI Royal Development, LLC, and UFI Exporter, Inc. Their Chapter 11 cases are jointly administered under Case No. 22-13422. Judge Selene D. Maddox oversees the cases. Wells Fargo is represented by R. Spencer Clift, III, Esq., while Security Associates is represented by Andrew C. Allen, Esq., at The Law Offices of Andrew C. Allen. Derek Henderson is the trustee appointed in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases. The trustee hired McCraney, Montagnet, Quin, Noble, PLLC as bankruptcy counsel; King & Spencer, PLLC, NC Eminent Domain Law Firm and Mullin Hoard & Brown, LLP as special counsels; Harper Rains Knight & Company as financial advisor; and B. Riley Real Estate, LLC as real estate advisor. UNITED SERVICES: Agrees to $3.25-Mil. Data Breach Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raquel of El Adelantado reports that people who received notice that their personal details were exposed in the May 2021 USAA data breach may have been eligible for a piece of a $3.25 million class action settlement. The financial services company agreed to resolve a nationwide lawsuit accusing it of not properly safeguarding customer data during a cyberattack. Since the deadline to file claims was April 7, 2025, anyone who qualified should have already submitted their paperwork to secure their share of the settlement. The class action lawsuit followed a data breach discovered around May 6, 2021, when unauthorized individuals reportedly accessed personal data stored by USAA. The compromised information may have included names, contact info, and possibly even more sensitive financial or account-related details. USAA, known for providing financial services to military members, veterans, and their families, has not admitted to any fault in the matter. Still, the company agreed to pay $3.25 million to settle the case, aiming to put the issue to rest and sidestep the expense and hassle of a prolonged court battle. To be considered for the settlement, individuals had to meet a couple of criteria: -- Their personal details must have been exposed due to the data breach, and they needed to have received an official notice from USAA confirming the incident. -- Anyone wanting to take part in the settlement was required to send in a valid claim form by April 7, 2025. Those forms had to include proof that they were impacted, either by attaching the notification they received from USAA or providing some other documentation indicating their information had been compromised. How much can claimants expect to receive from the settlement? Everyone who filed an approved claim will get an equal cut of what's left in the $3.25 million settlement pot -- after a few necessary deductions, of course. The final payout each person receives will depend on a few key things: How many people submitted valid claims, the amount taken out for legal fees and administrative expenses approved by the court, and any service awards given to the class representatives. While the total amount is fixed, personal compensation will depend on these three factors. If you missed the deadline to file your claim, you're out of luck for this settlement—but don't worry, there may still be opportunities through other class actions, like the Enzo Biochem data breach case. It's also worth noting that anyone who wasn't impacted by the USAA breach should steer clear of filing a false claim. In most cases, folks who qualify had to show the notification they got from USAA as proof. Faking your way into a payout not only hurts legitimate claimants, but it can also land you in legal hot water. So if your data wasn't caught up in this breach, it's best to sit this one out. What can we expect after filing the claim? The final green light is expected at the approval hearing scheduled for May 21, 2025. If everything goes smoothly and no one files an appeal, payments will start rolling out shortly after. For most approved claimants, the check should land in their mailbox within a few weeks—or at most, a couple of months—after the court signs off. Anyone impacted by this or a similar breach—such as the MGM Resorts data incident—shouldn't let the opportunity for compensation slip through their fingers. Filing a claim is usually a pretty straightforward process. In most cases, all it takes is the notification letter sent out by the company involved to get your slice of the settlement pie. To learn more about this case or get help filing your claim, head over to Top Class Actions for all the details. The plaintiffs in the case are being represented by Christian Levis, Amanda G. Fiorilla, and Anthony M. Christina of Lowey Dannenberg PC; Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston, and Christopher M. Brain of Gainey McKenna & Egleston; along with Gary F. Lynch and Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The settlement case is titled Vincent Dolan et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, filed under Case No. 7:21-cv-05813 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] US CLAIMS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, O'Bringer Says -------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD O'BRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US CLAIMS CAPITAL, LLC (USCC) d/b/a US CLAIMS, Case No. 9:25-cv-80476 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2025) alleges that the USCC failed to adequately secure and protect the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated USCC customers. The sensitive data -- including Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, financial information (including credit/debit card numbers), medical information, and health insurance information (Private Information) -- was left vulnerable to criminal hackers due to USCC's inadequate security measures. On April 11, 2025, USCC issued data breach notification letters to individuals whose information had been compromised in the hacking incident, including to the Plaintiff. According to the Notice sent to Plaintiff and the "Class Members,", the Defendant detected unusual activity on certain computer systems on January 7, 2025. In response, the Defendant initiated an investigation, which later confirmed on March 25, 2025, that an unauthorized party had accessed files containing sensitive customer information (the "Data Breach"). Despite the discovery, USCC waited more than three months notifying the public, leaving those affected unaware of their exposure and at risk. Due to this delay, the Plaintiff and Class Members remained unaware for three months that their Private Information had been compromised, leaving them vulnerable to an ongoing and substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other personal, social, and financial harms. This risk is not temporary but will persist for the rest of their lives, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Nevada, where he resides with the intent to remain indefinitely. USCC is a pre-settlement financial firm based in Florida. Founded in 1996. It offers financial services to personal injury victims of auto accidents, workplace and construction accidents, premises liability, and medical malpractice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com WADE LAW: Faces $80M Class Action Suit Over ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Andrews, writing for Oregon Business, reports that a network of lawyers who allegedly extorted small businesses around the country with threats of Americans with Disabilities Act complaints now faces a $80 million class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed earlier this month in federal court in Portland, alleges "fake testers" targeted four Portland-area businesses with threats of legal action over alleged disability access violations. The complaint alleges wire fraud and racketeering and asserts at least 4,000 victims nationwide are owed damages. Many paid out tens of thousands of dollars to avoid threatened legal action, according to the lawsuit, which was first reported by The Oregonian. The defendants include two Tennessee law firms and Portland lawyer Jessica Lee Molligan, who faces several related civil actions in Oregon including allegations of legal malpractice. Molligan had sued a Portland convenience store on behalf of a disabled man, Connor Slevin, who was paid for his participation in the suit. In November, a judge pointedly questioned her in a Portland courtroom over alleged violations of criminal procedure and professional ethics in her handling of the Slevin lawsuit. The federal class-action suit accuses Memphis law firms Wade Law, and Wampler, Carroll, Wilson & Sanderson of working with a network of lawyers in more than 15 states to extort money from businesses in the name of disability rights between January 2022 through 2025. In the complaint, states the defendants used an error-riddled electronic database to send thousands of demand letters seeking attorney fees to avoid court as well as file hundreds of lawsuits for supposed ADA violations. Slevin, who uses a wheelchair, has admitted he was paid $200 each time he visited a business, purchased an item and uploaded a receipt. He was asked to sign an agreement granting the attorney group "blanket power of attorney" to negotiate settlements with targeted shops. His testimony is now a key component of the class-action complaint in U.S. District Court in Portland. Slevin would then, through Molligan, send "cookie cutter" legal complaints alleging the shops violated disability access regulations. The forms were prepared by the Wampler firm, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit states Slevin was among dozens of disabled people around the country engaged as fake testers looking to pocket money from targeted businesses. They were told by Wampler lawyers to not concern themselves with locating actual ADA violations at the businesses because that work had already been done, according to the class-action complaint. Slevin and Molligan were sued by one Beaverton business owner who paid $22,000 for parking lot improvements after receiving a demand letter. Slevin has sued Molligan for $4 million alleging malpractice. "(Molligan) attempted to conceal certain acts and omissions as alleged in this complaint from (Slevin), in order for defendant to financially enrich herself at plaintiff’s expense," the complaint states. The Oregon plaintiffs include AB Hollywood, Baek Family Partnership, MY LLC and The Penney Kim Trust. AB Hollywood, which owns a small strip mall on NE Sandy Boulevard, was the entity that filed a motion alleging Molligan violated professional ethics. Molligan, who faces a bar investigation in addition to the malpractice lawsuit, has defended herself in court filings, saying she didn’t know how much Slevin was paid and believed he was paid to reimburse expenses. Slevin was not alone in Oregon filing ADA complaints on behalf of the Tennessee attorneys. Another man, Justin Burley-Beaver, claims he filed typically three businesses per month for $600 total. His name is attached to two dozen disability access lawsuits against small businesses in Oregon. The lawsuit states a different man in St. Louis involved in the alleged racket attached his name to 45 ADA lawsuits against businesses. [GN] WEIRTON, WV: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsafe Water Services --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Dacanay, writing for The Weirton Daily Times, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the Weirton Area Water Board and City of Weirton, seeking relief and compensation for Weirton water customers affected by the water system issues last winter. A civil complaint, filed April 16 in Brooke County Circuit Court, alleges negligence and breach of contract and claims residents suffered substantial harm due to the defendants' failure to provide safe and reliable water services. Logue Law Group of Carnegie, Pa., and OnderLaw LLC of St. Louis are collaborating on the lawsuit, which names Weirton resident Rose McClements as the plaintiff on behalf of individuals similarly situated. According to the complaint, the WAWB and city failed to maintain their infrastructure, mismanaged operations and violated contractual obligations to the public. These actions have caused health risks, financial losses and significant disruptions to daily life, the complaint claims. The plaintiffs are now seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including that all monies received by the defendants in connection with water services not provided during the class period be disgorged, and that defendants establish methods to ensure they meet their obligations to the plaintiff and class, according to the complaint. Between late 2024 and early 2025, the Weirton water system experienced more than 100 water line breaks, leading to widespread outages, low water pressure and boil advisories. The service disruptions and a mandatory water conservation impacted many residents and businesses. Officials primarily have attributed the situation to the winter's freeze and thaw cycle, compounded by water source mixing complications stemming from a primary pump's failure at the plant and concurrent refurbishing work on a well. Holding a press conference on the suit on April 17 at the Brooke County Courthouse was attorney Sean Logue, owner of Logue Law Group. Logue said he represents McClements and a number of other residents who've been impacted by the WAWB's alleged negligence. He is seeking class certification and estimated that potential claimants could number between 3,500 and 5,000. Logue claimed upgrades at the plant were done negligently, leading to water source mixing that caused the line breaks, and the WAWB has breached its contracts with customers by charging them monthly for water but providing them neither with water nor repair services. "This is ridiculous, and this has been going on for months and months and months, and there's no relief in sight," Logue said. "Well, this lawsuit is hopefully the first step in that relief." Water issues continue in certain high-elevation areas of the city, Logue claimed. Residents have been unable to use their bathrooms or sell their homes due to lack of water, and businesses, including doctor's offices and restaurants, have been forced to close. Logue said his allegations are based on good-faith conversations with engineers who were involved in the situation, but the case's discovery period will provide more information. Those engineers — who Logue declined to name -- reached out to him and articulated the issues that are contained in the complaint. Logue said Brooke County was chosen as the case's venue because "I was concerned that the jury pool in Hancock County might have issues because people who work for the water authority are likely to live in Hancock County." He added that a portion of people affected by the crisis live in Brooke County, and some of the alleged negligence was done in that county. The exact amount sought in compensation has not yet been determined, Logue said. Legal counsel for the City of Weirton and Weirton Area Water Board could not be reached for comment. The WAWB is an autonomous board that oversees the operation and maintenance of the city's water treatment and distribution systems. Members are appointed by Weirton City Council. [GN] WYOMING COUNTY, NY: Stockweather Opts Out of Claims in Gworek Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York signed the parties' Joint Stipulated Order of Opt Out and Waiver in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA L. GWOREK, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. WYOMING COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00679-JLS-HKS (W.D.N.Y.). The parties mutually agreed that Plaintiff Jacob Stockweather, as potential class action member in the class action, does waive and opt out of any claims to recovery on the basis as set forth here from and in connection with the consolidated class action matters pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 23(c)(3)(B). Based on the recent passage of Chapter 55 of the Laws of 2024 (Assembly Bill A8805C and Senate Bill S8305C) signed by Governor Hochul on April 20, 2024, representing the legislative intent to amend Article 11 of the New York Real Property Tax Law ("RPTL") in response to the decision Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minnesota, 598 U.S. 631 (2023) and to legislatively resolve the related political question issues, the parties have agreed and stipulate that all constitutional claims are waived as related to any claims that the Plaintiff may have in any class action asserted against the County of Wyoming with the intended effect as set forth under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B). The Plaintiff, after filing an application for tax surplus funds under the newly amended Article 11 of the RPTL, has established that he is entitled to receive an amount yet to be determined from the County, and a New York State Justice has executed an Order (attached as "Exhibit A") relating to the subject property: 6 Elm Street, City of Attica, New York with Tax Map No.: 2 6.11-2-25, and as such, the Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of all funds that he is entitled to under the applicable laws of this State and waives and opts out of any recovery from any class action as referenced. The parties and counsel understand and agree that the voluntary waiver and opting out of the Plaintiff's asserted constitutional and other related state claims, as set forth in the class actions, wherein he is an eligible class member, such opting out and waiver is with prejudice by the Plaintiff, as evidenced by his election to pursue available remedies under the newly amended New York RPTL and will preclude such Plaintiff from seeking relief in any proceeding except the proceeding identified by the Index No. 52292, including that such he will be precluded from participating in any class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, class arbitration, state-court class action, or any other type of class action -- whether resolved by judgment or settlement seeking the same or similar relief as this action. A full-text copy of the Court's Joint Stipulated Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/57xzhkwj from PacerMonitor.com. Thomas A. Steffan, Cooke and Steffan, in Alden, New York 14004, Attorneys for Potential Non-Named Plaintiff Class Member [Stockweather]. H. Todd Bullard -- tbullard@harrisbeachmurtha.com -- Steven P. Nonkes -- snonkes@harrisbeachmurtha.com -- Neal L. Slifkin -- nslifkin@harrisbeachmurtha.com -- Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC, in Pittsford, New York 14534, Attorneys for Defendant Chautauqua County. YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Harvin Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEPHANIE HARVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:25-cv-00612 (D. Conn., April 17, 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 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. 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 Court. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.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 ***