250505.mbx

250505.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 89 Headlines 361 DELI: Lenin Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ACRT PACIFIC LLC: Carmack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibit Tossed AJAY GLASS: Louis Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ALCLEAR LLC: Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order Deferred ALLPRO PARKING: Boone Seeks Conditional Class Certification ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers ALPACA AUDIOLOGY: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Terrell Suit Seeks Class Certification AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert. Issues Narrowed in Shamman Suit ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Overby Seeks Clarification of March 27 Order ATHENA BITCOIN: Reynolds Suit Removed to D. Maryland BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Ramirez Suit Set for May 27 BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Davis Suit Over Nivea Products' False Labels BHAGYESH PATEL: Fails to Pay Mandated Minimum Wages, Garcia Says BRANDS LBNY: Diaz Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL BROWN PAINDIRIS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Buechler Says BYTEDANCE INC: Riley Suit Transferred to C.D. California BYTEDANCE INC: Walters Suit Transferred to C.D. California CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Kahn Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info CARSON'S FOOD: Pinkerman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages CHAPTER 2 BAR: Mekonen Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Dismisses Tithing-Related Suit CITRIX SYSTEMS: Emmett Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Pass Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Galo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Heller Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA DELTA AIR LINES: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DES MOINES REGISTER: Donnelly Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa DFS GOURMET SPECIALTIES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Websi DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages DIVIDEND FINANCE: Jean-Baptiste Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota EETHO BRANDS INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELEVANCE HEALTH: Sekelsky Employment Suit Removed to D. Conn. ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS: Settlement in ERISA Case Wins Final OK EMERALD OAK APARTMENTS: Mastriano Files Suit in Fla. Dist. Ct. EMPLOYNET INC: Velaquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENDUE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Doe Suit Says EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE: Devlin Suit Transferred to S.D. New York FISHER-PRICE INC: Raatz Sues Over Defective Infant Activity Center FIVE BELOW INC: Pringle Suit Removed to C.D. California FLAGSHIP REST: Lippold Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. FOX NEWS: Faces Poper Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal GERBER PAYROLL: Coghill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Chambers Sues Over Meds' False Ads GOLFBALLS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Says GOODRX INC: C and M Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: Capitol Heights Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: Community Care Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: Gus Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: Melrose Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOSHT INC: Calleja Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA HAMILTON HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Morrow Says HAMILTON HEALTH: Mitchell Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HEALTH CARE TEMPORARIES: Carter Sues Over Unpaid Wages HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Noohi Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products HERTZ CORPORATION: L.B. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri HIBAR INC: Cazares Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HIKVISION USA INC: Fernald Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HOME DEPOT INC: Emami Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri HOME DEPOT: Franklin Suit Removed to N.D. California INSURANCEZEBRA INC: Discloses Private Info to FB, Google, Suit Says INTERNET WINES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges INTREPID CREDIT: Meyer Sues Over Unfair Overdraft Fee Practices JUSTANSWER LLC: Ninth Circuit Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dohrman Alleges KILLOWEN SOUTHSIDE: Manay Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LA MEND INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Palmer" Suit Remains Pending LABORATORY SERVICES: M.M. Sues Over Unprotected Health Info LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LANZATECH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Merger LASALLE APARTMENTS: Seeks To Stay Class Cert Bid Proceedings LASERSHIP INC: Limas Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts LINAMAR STRUCTURES: Wright Seeks OK to Send Notice MARIO'S AIR: Ullom Appointed as Mediator in Germain MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge MATTHEW WEISS: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Personal Info MDL 3149: Schwartz v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Strelzin v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Vargha v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: White v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Zarif v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Blank Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: DiGuardia Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Omiatek Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONTANA FEDERAL: Faces Brusati Suit Over Deceptive Overdraft Fees MUBI INC: Faces Cejudo Suit Over Automatic Membership Enrollment MYKONIAN HOUSE: Faces Mert Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. NIKE INC: Faces Cheema Securities Class Action Suit Over NFTs NIRVANA WATER: Lorber Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response PAYWARD INC: Faces Rose Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PEOPLEREADY INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PHARMAVITE LLC: Faces Noguez Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements PIM BRANDS USA: Perkins Suit Removed to E.D. New York PIZZA AL FRESCO: Marin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices POWER ELECTRONICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 9 POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Allen Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Okoni Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Brown Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cabrera Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Campbell Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Campbell Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Vargha Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL: Martinez-Turnbow Suit Transferred to S.D. California READY CAPITAL: Faces Goebel Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ROSEVILLE, CA: Settlement in Homeless Persons Case Wins Initial OK SC JOHNSON: Ziploc Bags & Containers Not Microwave Safe, Suit Says SIGNALHIRE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gaul Due Dec. 3 ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Mandatory Mediation Session in Miller Due June 13 TRUROOTS LLC: $350,000 Wage Deal Gets Preliminary Approval UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Filing in Scroeder Due Sept. 22 VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Faces Smile Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy ZEROO GRAVITY: Settlement in Ochoa Gets Initial OK ********* 361 DELI: Lenin Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARX LENIN GALINDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 361 DELI GROCERY LLC (d/b/a 361 Deli), and AHMED N. AL QAFARI, Case No. e 1:25-cv-03469 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for the hours he worked, asserts the suit. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Calleja appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the suit adds. Plaintiff Galindo is a former employee of Defendants 361 Deli Grocery LLC. The Defendant is a deli located at 361 E. 204th Street, Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ACRT PACIFIC LLC: Carmack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACRT Pacific, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Carmack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACRT Pacific, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005804 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." ACRT Pacific -- https://pacific.acrt.com/ -- specializes in the vegetation management challenges utilities, pipelines, DOT and railroads face in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUNDREA HARDY, v. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03945-FLA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying Defendant's ex parte application to seal an exhibit supporting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court finds that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to seal the Spreadsheet. The exhibit is a payroll spreadsheet, an excerpt of which is appended to the Declaration of Nicholas F. Scardigli. A link to the full Spreadsheet is contained in the Declaration. The Spreadsheet contains payroll data on Defendant's employees, including, inter alia, employee identification numbers, category of occupation (e.g., "driver"), earning type (e.g., overtime, paid time off), hourly wage, hours worked, and total earnings for the pay period. The only information redacted on the Spreadsheet is the first and last name of each employee. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JCHkUq at no extra charge.[CC] AJAY GLASS: Louis Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARDY LOUIS and SHERRON SAWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AJAY GLASS & MIRROR CO., JIM STATHOPOULOS, STEVE STATHOPOULOS, and DEAN STATHOPOULOS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs shall move the Court, Honorable Anthony J. Brindisi, on a date to be determined by the Court, for an Order as follows: (i) conditionally permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who were employed by the Defendants from April 2, 2021 through the trial of this action; (ii) compelling the Defendants to furnish the names, last known physical addresses, last known email addresses and last known telephone numbers of those individuals in the collective action; (iii) authorizing the Plaintiffs to circulate a Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form to all individuals who are similarly situated; and (iv) together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Ajay Glass operates as a glass wall system contractors. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xr6gej at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Giaimo, Esq. Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com ALCLEAR LLC: Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order Deferred ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turner v. Alclear, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00530 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order deferring issuing a Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order with respect to the class certification until after it issues a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Alclear LLC is a technology company that operates the biometric identity verification service called CLEAR.[CC] ALLPRO PARKING: Boone Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE BOONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLPRO PARKING, LLC, ALLPRO PARKING HOLDINGS, LLC, PREMIUM PARTNER HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and PREMIUM PARKING OF BUFFALO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-00862-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, Honorable Lawrence J. Vilardo, on a date to be determined by the Court, for an Order as follows: (i) conditionally permitting the Plaintiff to proceed as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all current and former non-exempt hourly employees who were employed by the defendants from Nov. 10, 2019 through the trial of this action; (ii) compelling the Defendants to furnish an updated list of the names, last known physical addresses, last known email addresses and last known telephone numbers of those individuals in the collective action; (iii) authorizing the Plaintiff to circulate a Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form to all individuals who are similarly situated in this action; and (iv) together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Allpro is a full-service parking and transportation management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=so7UsR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Jason Giaimo, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Ryan, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 700 Crossroads Building Two State Street Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 987-2809 E-mail: aryan@woodsoviatt.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Sheridan Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as follows: "All West Virginia consumers identified by the Defendant with a West Virginia mailing address (1) with an automobile loan securing a vehicle with a Contract and Garage State in West Virginia, (2) where the lender or assignee is Ally, (3) who paid a fee to Ally or its agent for making a loan payment by telephone or over the internet, by interactive voice recognition (IVR) or by other electronic means, from four years before the filing of the complaint through the date a class is certified." Accordingly, Mr. Sheridan requests that the Court appoint the following attorneys as counsel for the class: Jonathan R. Marshall, Patricia M. Kipnis, and James L. Kauffman. Ally offers automotive financial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1re6T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Denali Hedrick, Esq. James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: PKipnis@baileyglasser.com JMarshall@baileyglasser.com DHedrick@baileyglasser.com JKauffman@baileyglasser.com ALPACA AUDIOLOGY: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Alpaca Audiology, LLC, AudioNova, MVF US, LLC, Marketing VF Ltd., HearClear.com, Case No. 25JE-CC00272 was removed from the U Circuit Court of Jefferson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00574 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alpaca Audiology, LLC -- https://www.alpacaaudiology.com/ -- operates a negotiation network for medical devices. The Company focuses on protecting the profession and future of audiology.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Heather Bub, Esq. AMUNDSEN DAVIS LLC - St. Louis 7711 Carondelet Avenue, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 719-3700 Email: hbub@salawus.com AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Terrell Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., NASHVILLE WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC & MID-SOUTH WIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff's sex discrimination claim as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) class action on behalf of the following class: "All female job candidates who, during the period from Jan. 20, 2022, through the final date of judgment: (1) Met the minimum qualifications for positions at Nashville Wire's Tennessee facilities for which Angie Hollis had hiring authority; and either (2) Applied to Ambassador Personnel, Inc. and (a) were not referred to Nashville Wire; (b) were not hired by Nashville Wire; or (c) had a referral or job offer with Nashville Wire revoked (the "Ambassador Subclass"); or (3) Applied to a staffing agency or directly to Nashville Wire Products Manufacturing Company, LLC and (a) were not referred to Nashville Wire; (b) were not hired by Nashville Wire; or (c) had a referral or job offer with Nashville Wire revoked (the "Nashville Wire Subclass"). Ambassador Personnel is a staffing and human resources company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YJhG4u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Curt M. Masker, Esq. RICKARD MASKER, PLC 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 200-8289 Facsimile: (615) 821-0632 E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com curt@maskerfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason M. Pannu, Esq. Emily Walker, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 424 Church Street, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 208-5890 E-mail: jason.pannu@fmglaw.com emily.walker@fmglaw.com - and - Daniel Crowell, Esq. BARTON LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2603 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 340-6790 E-mail: dcrowell@bartonesq.com - and - C. Jason Wilcox, Esq. MOORE CLARKE DUVALL & RODGERS, P.C. Post Office Drawer 71727 Albany, GA 31708-1727 Telephone: (229) 888-3338 E-mail: jwillcox@mcdr-law.com AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal certain portions of their Reply in Support of Class Certification and exhibits in support thereof. The Application, which is accompanied by the Declaration of Kolin C. Tang in support and a proposed Order, is narrowly tailored and identifies the portions that the Plaintiffs request to be filed under seal as to Plaintiffs': (1) Reply in Support of Class Certification; (2) Opposition to Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of the Plaintiffs' Expert Murat Okcuoglu pursuant to Rule 702; (3) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Steven Boyles; (4) Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Defendant's Expert Ashish Arora pursuant to Rule 702; and (5) exhibits filed in support thereof and the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Menendez Declaration. The exhibits at issue are, for the most part, materials produced by or employee deposition testimony of Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM), which AHM designated as "Confidential," pursuant to section 5 of the Stipulated Protective Order entered between the parties and granted by the Court on August 17, 2021 American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. The portions of Plaintiffs' briefs and remaining exhibits, which include Plaintiffs' expert report and expert testimony, that Plaintiffs also seek to file under seal either reference, discuss, or describe the exhibits AHM designated as "Confidential." American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8psVer at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Christopher Stiner, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com nfinkelman@millershah.com kctang@millershah.com AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert. Issues Narrowed in Shamman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff entered an order granting remainder of joint motion to narrow issues for class certification: The Plaintiff brings this class action for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). On March 19, 2025, the Plaintiff Quintin Shammam and Defendant American Honda Financial Corporation filed a joint motion to narrow issues for class certification. In their joint motion, the parties sought an order memorializing several stipulations, including Defendant’s stipulation that numerosity is met, as defined and required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. On April 16, 2025, Judge Torres issued an order granting the parties' motion in part. American Honda offers a range of leasing and financing solutions for automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4LjLAz at no extra charge.[CC] ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Overby Seeks Clarification of March 27 Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR. and ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order clarifying the Court's March 27, 2025, Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification, and denying the Defendant Anheuser-Busch, LLC's cross-motion for decertification. Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BK5r0c at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Curwoo, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samanth R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Ste 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com ggreenberg@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq. James E. Tysse, Esq. Katherine I. Heise, Esq. Margaret O. Rusconi, Esq. Benjamin R. Saul, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 Facsimile:(202) 887-4288 E-mail: blian@akingump.com jtysse@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com mrusconi@akingump.com saulb@akingump.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Reynolds Suit Removed to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diane Reynolds, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc. and Genesis Coin, Inc., Case No. C-15-CV-25-000545 was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on April 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01318. The Plaintiff alleges that in July 2024 she was the target and victim of a fraudulent scheme perpetrated on her by an unknown criminal actor or actors, and that Plaintiff allegedly used Athena Bitcoin's kiosks to pay the fraudster(s). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts five causes of action against Defendants: violation of the Maryland Safe Act, negligence, products liability: design defect, violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5304 Phone: (202) 861-1500 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com - and - Terry Brennan, Esq. Sam A. Camardo, Esq. Kendall C. Kash, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216.861.2000 Email: tbrennan@bakerlaw.com scamardo@bakerlaw.com kkash@bakerlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Ramirez Suit Set for May 27 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order the following modified scheduling order expediting briefing on BANA's Motion to Strike, vacating the current April 29, 2025 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and setting a new hearing on both Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and BANA's Motion: Event New Date Opposition to BANA's Motion to Strike Apr. 22, 2025 (or, alternatively, for leave to surreply): Reply in support of BANA's Motion to Strike April 25, 2025 (or, alternatively, for leave to surreply): Hearing on BANA's Motion to Strike (or, May 27, 2025, alternatively, for leave to surreply): or another date convenient for the Court Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class May 27, 2025, Certification: or another date convenient for the Court The Parties agree that it would promote efficiency that briefing on BANA's motion to strike and related submissions be expedited to provide the Court sufficient time to review and consider the Parties' arguments in connection therewith before the hearing on Plaintiffs motion for class certification. Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gGfok8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cort T. Carlson, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Glenn E. Chappell, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ccarlson@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com gchappell@tzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq. Ashley Pavel, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: emckeen@omm.com apavel@omm.com BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Davis Suit Over Nivea Products' False Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ AISLEY DAVIS, JULIUS YARBOUGH, VALERIE ROBINS, MARISOL SCHARON and KATHRYN BOWMAN, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03661 (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2025) is a class action complaint against Beiersdorf for fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; negligent misrepresentation; unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The case concerns Beiersdorf's "Nourish by Nature" and "Naturally Good" products sold under its "Nivea" brand, including Nivea "Nourish by Nature" lotions and Nivea "Naturally Good" skin creams and related skin products, which the Defendant sells using the false claim that they are comprised of specific proportions of "natural origin ingredients" (e.g., "99% Natural Origin Ingredients") or naturally-derived ingredients (e.g., "98% Naturally Derived Ingredients"). The products include Beiersdorf's Nivea "Nourish by Nature" body lotions and Nivea "Naturally Good" lotions, skin creams, and related skin products. The Defendant affirmatively represents that the Products have "X% Natural Origin Ingredients" (e.g., "99% Natural Origin" for the Nivea "Naturally Good" Organic Aloe Vera Radiance Cream) or "X% Naturally Derived Ingredients" (e.g., "98% Naturally Derived Ingredients" for Nivea "Nourish by Nature" lavender-enriched body lotion). The Defendant makes this claim on the front labels of the Products' packaging. The Defendant also represents to consumers that the Products are "X% naturally derived ingredients" on its website and related third-party retail websites. However, Defendant's representation regarding the Products is false and/or misleading, says the suit. Beiersdorf markets and sells Nivea products across the United States, in particular via the Beiersdorf website, which it operates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Anthony J. Patek, Esq.] GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com anthony@gutridesafier.com BHAGYESH PATEL: Fails to Pay Mandated Minimum Wages, Garcia Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JIL BENITO GARCIA, and EDUMUNDO CAMPOS on behalf of themselves and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown v. BHAGYESH PATEL and VICTOR MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-04494 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for: a) Defendants' failure to pay its employees at time and a half their mandated regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week; b) Defendants' failure to pay its employees at least the state- mandated minimum wage for all time worked at the Illinois- mandated minimum rate of pay for all time worked; c) Defendants' failure to pay it employees working within the City of Chicago limits for all time worked at the Chicago- mandated minimum rate of pay for all time worked. Defendants Patel and Martinez are business partners that founded a chain of Mexican Restaurants that do business as Taco Pros. The Defendants own several LLC's including, but not limited to, Chicago Taco Brothers, LLC., Montrose Taco Pros, LLC., Damen Taco Pros, LLC., Green Taco Pros, LLC., Pramanik, LLC., and Gurnee Taco Pros, LLC., among others which do business as Taco Pros.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala. Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AYALA & WILLIAMS, LLC. 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60613 Telephone: (312) 725-3696 BRANDS LBNY: Diaz Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE DIAZ, ERIN ANDERSON-WRAPP, BRIAN DONOVAN, RONALD WASHINGTON, PETER BARRIOS, and all those similarly situated v. BRANDS LBNY CORPORATION d/b/a BRANDS DELI, Case No. 1:25-cv-02316 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs at Brands Deli overtime pay, failed to pay spread of hour, failed to provide proper statements with each payment of wages and failure to provide annual wage rate notifications in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant issued payment for Plaintiffs' first 40 hours worked cash weekly, and for any overtime hours worked Plaintiffs were not properly paid as New York Law. The Defendant utilized cash pay to Plaintiffs in an attempt to not pay overtime pay requirements of the FLSA, NYLL, and WPTA. The Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but Defendant did not pay them time and a half for the overtime hours they worked each week. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not receive spread of hours pay and Defendant failed to provide them with wage notices and wage statements at the end of each pay period, as required by New York law. The Plaintiffs were paid at rates ranging from $15.00 to $19.00 per hour during their employment. Irrespective of the number of hours worked per week, at no time did the Defendant pay overtime at one and one-half times Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate nor they receive any tips, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs worked for the LBNY as cooks and counter clerks in Long Beach, New York, from 2021 through present. Brands Deli is a deli known for subs, sandwiches, salads and catering in Long Beach, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Luke, Jr., Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 419 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 420-9300 BROWN PAINDIRIS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Buechler Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BUECHLER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00629 (D. Conn., April 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect and secure the confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information of its clients, resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. The Defendant is a multi-practice law firm operating throughout the state of Connecticut and surrounding areas. 3. Between November 7, 2023, and November 9, 2023, Defendant lost control over its computer network, and the highly sensitive PII and PHI stored within, in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Accordingly, the Data Breach impacted thousands of the Defendant's current and former clients.  Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access and/or acquired current and former clients' PII/PHI, including but not limited to full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license or State ID numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, financial account information, payment card numbers, and PHI, including medical Information and health insurance information. On March 2025, over 16 months later, the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach via notice of data breach letters. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of the Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Private Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. The exposure of one's Private Information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before the Data Breach, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, their Private Information is permanently exposed and unsecure, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of Sparrows Point, MD, where he intends to remain. Plaintiff is a former client of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. [BN] The Defendant is a law firm that "offers top-notch representation across a wide range of practice areas" including criminal defense, divorce, personal injury and medical malpractice. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com BYTEDANCE INC: Riley Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Riley, on behalf of W.C.R., T.S.R.R., N.A.R., T.A.R., and N.J.R.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-60498 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03397-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global in cubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clayton Morris Connors, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLAYTON M CONNORS 4300 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 37 Pensacola, FL 32503 Phone: (850) 473-0401 Email: cmc@westconlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Glenn T. Burhans, Jr., Esq. Hannah Eleanor Murphy, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER ETC PA - TALLAHASSEE FL 106 East College Ave., Suite 700 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 328-4850 Email: gburhans@stearnsweaver.com hmurphy@stearnsweaver.com - and - Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq. Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Fax: (310) 246-6779 Email: dpetrocelli@omm.com mpowers@omm.com - and - Stephen D. Brody, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 383-5167 Email: sbrody@omm.com BYTEDANCE INC: Walters Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Katherine R. Walters, on behalf of L.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00677 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03432-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Heather M. McElroy Michael A. Sacchet CIRESI CONLIN LLP 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 361-8200 Email: hmm@ciresiconlin.com mas@ciresiconlin.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy R. Fiterman, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-7768 Fax: (612) 766-1600 Email: amy.fiterman@FaegreBD.com - and - Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq. Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Fax: (310) 246-6779 Email: dpetrocelli@omm.com mpowers@omm.com - and - Stephen D. Brody, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 383-5167 Email: sbrody@omm.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Kahn Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN KAHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 4:25-cv-03523-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) addresses the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to Google LLC, without their knowledge or consent. The Defendant owns and controls the website and subpages located at www.blueshieldca.com (Website), which it encourages patients to "Find a doctor," navigate resources to find care options for specific illnesses and conditions, compare prices for specific prescription drugs, access and upload sensitive financial and medical documents, and download "self-guided" resources to treat mental health conditions, among other functions. As a health insurance provider, Blue Shield is a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and is required by law to provide every member with a Notice of Privacy Practices. Defendant's HIPAA Privacy Notice states that "we are required to maintain the privacy of your PHI [personal health information]." The Defendant further explains that it may only disclose PHI without written authorization for a limited enumerated purposes, and that "we will not use your PHI for marketing purposes without your prior written authorization," says the suit. Blue Shield is a health insurance company that offers health plans to approximately six million health plan members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddie Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: Eekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com CARSON'S FOOD: Pinkerman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- LAKEN B. PINKERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARSON'S FOOD & DRINK #1, LLC, CARSON'S FOOD & DRINK, #2, LLC, and PALATE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00138-KKC (E.D. Ken., April 21, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA and the KWHA because they: (1) failed to satisfy the notice prerequisite for taking the "tip credit"; (2) required Tip Credit Employees to work dual jobs -- one job that involves tipped work and another job that involves non-tipped work before and after serving customers and throughout their shift—all while being paid less than the statutory minimum wage; (3) required Tip Credit Employees to share their earned tips with employees who have no or only de minimis interaction with customers while taking a tip credit; and (4) unlawfully required Tip Credit Employees to remit their tips to a tip pool for distribution among other employees. Plaintiff Pinkerman was employed from approximately May 2017 through approximately September 2024 as a Hostess, Busser, and Barback at Defendants' Carson's on Main restaurant. Carson's Food & Drink #1, LLC is a restaurant based in Lexington, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jerome P. Prather, Esq. J. Conner Niceley, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 North Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 254-9352 Facsimile: (859) 233-9769 E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com cniceley@garmerprather.com CHAPTER 2 BAR: Mekonen Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------- MULUALEM MEKONEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAPTER 2 BAR AND RESTAURANT LLC and MELKAM TESHOME, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00678 (E.D. Va., April 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid tips, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and any other appropriate relief, as provided under the Virginia Overtime Payment Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act, Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and other similarly situated who worked alongside Plaintiff and who worked at the restaurants were not paid proper minimum and overtime premium wages by the Defendants and were not paid tips left to them by customers of the restaurant. As the result of Plaintiff's demands for unpaid wages, Defendant Teshome terminated her in violation of the FLSA, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked as a waitress from beginning in January 2023 through mid-August 2023, when she was terminated by Defendants. Chapter 2 Bar and Restaurant LLC is an Australian owned and operated restaurant and bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Dismisses Tithing-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Tithing Litigation, Case No. 2:24-md-03102 (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert Shelby entered an order granting the Church's motion to dismiss, granting Ensign's motion to dismiss, and denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike. Because the court decides the Motions first and foremost on the statute of limitations issue, the court dismisses each of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Considering Defendants' Motions to Dismiss together, the court concludes (1) Defendants' statute of limitations defense precludes each of the Plaintiffs' claims and, in any event, (2) the Plaintiffs plead insufficient facts under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 9(b) to show they are entitled to relief. Accordingly, the court dismisses each of the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice and denies as moot the Defendants' Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs in this consolidated Multidistrict Litigation allege that over decades they have collectively donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in about 1997 the Church established Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc. to act as a "slush fund" for charitable donations, including tithing from Church members. Plaintiffs contend the Church did this to conceal its accounts, to prevent donors from learning about the scale of its financial holdings, and to obfuscate the Church's use of its funds. Based largely on a 2019 whistleblower report, Plaintiffs maintain the Church accumulated well over one hundred billion dollars in accounts while making no contributions to support the charitable purposes it identified when soliciting donations. Instead, the Plaintiffs claim the Church spent about two billion dollars on for-profit Church-owned enterprises, lied to the Internal Revenue Service about the extent of its assets and holdings, and utilized a complex series of shell companies as part of its scheme to secret the true value of its holdings. Seeking to represent a nationwide class of all individuals who donated funds to the Church since 1998, the Plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the Church's "unlawful and deceptive practices"; order regular public accounting by the Church concerning the collection, use, and disposition of donated funds; appoint a Special Master to monitor the Church’s collection and use of donated funds; and to enter a judgment requiring the Church to pay damages, including return of monies donated (including tithing paid by Church members), restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees. The Church is "a worldwide Christian church with a growing membership of over 17 million." A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=047Jrz at no extra charge.[CC] CITRIX SYSTEMS: Emmett Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ryan Emmett, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Cloud Software Group, Inc., Case No. GD-25-003268 was removed from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00546 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company that provides server, application and desktop virtualization, networking, software as a service, and cloud computing technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Colin J. Callahan, Esq. FLANNERY GEORGALIS 436 Seventh Avenue Koppers Building, Ste. 2100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 213-4246 Email: ccallahan@flannerygeorgalis.com - and - Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH PO Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 799-2000 Fax: (803) 256-7500 CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Pass Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHOSHANNAH PASS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS US, LLC and SAM'S WEST, INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-50186 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of consumers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information—which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Cleo Communications US, LLC is a third-party vendor that provides software services to its clients, including Sam's Club. Sam's Club, owned by Walmart, is a members-only food and non-food warehouse retailer and that operates locations across the country and an e-commerce store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - 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 CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Galo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleo Communications, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Elio Galo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cleo Communications US, LLC, Cleo Communications, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-04387 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo -- https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company founded in 1976.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Watkins, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com - and - Yanling Jiang, Esq. JIANGIP, LLC 33 W. Jackson. Blvd., Ste. 2w Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (925) 247-4786 Email: yanling@jiangip.com CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Heller Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN HELLER, GARRETT DOREO, JIMMY CLARK, MATT CUNNINGHAM, WALTER GRIFFITTS, and GREGORY PORTER, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. : 2:25-cv-00441-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 23, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Defendant employs electrical workers, including Construction Electricians, Construction Wiremen, Journeyman Wiremen, Journeyman Technicians, Foremen, Sub-General Foremen, General Foremen, Welders, and Medium Voltage Cable Splicers at the Plain City Site (Hourly Employees). The Defendant employs more than 150 Hourly Employees at the Plain City Site at any given time. The Defendant pays its Hourly Employees on an hourly basis. The Defendant's Hourly Employees are not exempt from the overtime mandates of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. Accordingly, Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, at all times relevant herein, Defendant did not compensate its Hourly Employees at the correct overtime premium rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant is an electrical engineering company that provides electrical general contracting services for construction projects throughout the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 796-4325 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com DELTA AIR LINES: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. The case is styled as James Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 25STCV11805 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- https://www.delta.com/ -- is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, operating nine hubs, with Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport being its largest in terms of total passengers and number of departures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DES MOINES REGISTER: Donnelly Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Donnelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DES MOINES REGISTER AND TRIBUNE CO., INC.; J. ANN SELZER; SELZER & COMPANY; and GANNETT CO., INC.,, Case No. 05771 CVCV068445 was removed from the District Court for Polk County, Iowa, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on April 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00150-RGE-WPK. In the Prayer for Relief, the Petition requests: certification of the putative class; a declaration "that the Defendants engaged in intentional misrepresentation, or alternatively that they engaged in recklessly negligent misrepresentation"; a declaration "that Defendants engaged in consumer fraud under the Iowa Consumer Fraud statute"; a declaration "that the Defendants engaged in professional malpractice"; a declaration "that Defendants interfered with the right to vote"; "actual damages equivalent to one year's subscription, whether digital or print," for all class members; nominal damages for Plaintiff Donnelly and all class members; punitive damages for Plaintiff Donnelly and all putative class members; attorneys' fees; and any other relief the Court finds just and appropriate.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicholas Klinefeldt, Esq. David Yoshimura, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309-8003 Phone: (515) 248-9000 Facsimile: (515) 248-9010 Email: nick.klinefeldt@faegredrinker.com david.yoshimura@faegredrinker.com DFS GOURMET SPECIALTIES: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Websi ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. DFS GOURMET SPECIALTIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03476 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://betterbutter.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. DFS GOURMET SPECIALTIES, INC., operates the Better Butter online retail store, as well as the Better Butter interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- SKYLAR BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-21900-RKA (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. As alleged, the Defendant violated TCPA by initiating automated text messages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class and initiating telemarketing text messages to telephone numbers at unlawful hours. The Plaintiff was the subscriber and primary user of a cellular telephone number ending in 8737. The Plaintiff never consented to receive telemarketing from the Defendant and never did any business with them. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. on behalf of the following proposed Classes: -- TCPA Autodialer Class "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and the date of class certification, (1) received a text message, (2) by or on behalf of Defendant, (3) on their cellular phone, (4) that was sent using the same equipment or type of equipment used to call Plaintiff, (5) and who did not give prior express written consent to receive such calls." -- TCPA Restricted Hours Class "All persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and the date of class certification, (1) received two or more text messages (2) in any 12-month period (3) by or on behalf of Defendant (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, (4) where such text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location)". -- FTSA Autodialer Class "All persons who, between July 1, 2021, and the date of class certification, (1) received a text message (2) by or on behalf of Defendant (3) regarding Defendant's property, goods, and/or services (4) that was sent using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff, (5) and who did not give prior express written consent to receive such calls." -- FTSA Caller ID Class "All persons in the State of Florida who, between July 1, 2021, and the date of class certification, (1) received a text message, (2) by or on behalf of Defendant, (3) that was not capable of receiving telephone calls and/or failed to connect callers to the Defendant’s customer service telephone number during regular business hours." Dick's is a sporting goods retail company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: 305-900-4653 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Alexander Korolinsky, Esq. AJK LEGAL 1580 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Ste 130 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: 888-815-3350 E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com DIVIDEND FINANCE: Jean-Baptiste Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Myrenne Jean-Baptiste, and all others similarly situated v. Dividend Finance, Inc., Affordable Solar Roof & Air, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80461 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-01604-KMM-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute Dividend Finance -- https://www.dividendfinance.com/ -- is a leading provider of solar and home improvement financing solutions to property owners.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Shane Horton, Esq. JOSHUA HORTON LAW FIRM 107 Pond Apple Lane Jupiter, FL 33418 Phone: (561) 764-4041 Fax: (561) 584-5212 Email: josh@joshuahortonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Klarika Jean Caplano, Esq. FLORIDA FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 690 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: (727) 446-4826 Email: kcaplano@flaforeclosureattorneys.com - and - Brandon Todd Holmes, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 201 N Franklin St Ste 3050 Tampa, FL 33602-5816 Phone: (813) 543-9848 Fax: (813) 543-9849 Email: brandon.holmes@dinsmore.com EETHO BRANDS INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. EETHO BRANDS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03351 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"), for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://dosedaily.co/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. EETHO BRANDS INC., operates the Dose Daily online retail store, as well as the Dose Daily interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ELEVANCE HEALTH: Sekelsky Employment Suit Removed to D. Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MOLLY SEKELSKY, individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. Defendant, Case No. ______, was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00631 to the proceeding. The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged failure to pay proper wages in violation of the Connecticut Wage Act. Elevance Health, Inc. is a for-profit health insurance provider based in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: David R. Golder, Esq. Allison P. Dearington, Esq. Danielle Sturgeon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 90 State House Square, 8th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 522-0404 Facsimile: (860) 247-1330 E-mail: david.golder@jacksonlewis.com allison.dearington@jacksonlewis.com danielle.sturgeon@jacksonlewis.com ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS: Settlement in ERISA Case Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Baylson, J. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement reached in the case captioned, BRADLEY J. MCLACHLAN, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS ANNUITY AND 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN et al., Case No. 22-04115 (E.D. Pa.). The Court also granted, in part, and denied, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Incentive Awards. Bradley J. McLachlan and Alex D. Graham and the other Plaintiffs participate in the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan, a multiemployer contribution plan. The Plaintiffs alleged the Trustees of the Elevator Constructors Annuity and 401(k) Retirement Plan breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by: 1. retaining expensive and underperforming funds; 2. failing to monitor excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and costs; 3. failing to monitor investment management fees. On November 26, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, which provides for the creation of a $5,000,000 Settlement Fund, conditionally certified a Settlement Class, and appointed Class Representatives and Class Counsel. In granting final approval to the accord, the Court held that the Settlement is presumptively fair because: -- The parties meaningfully participated in mediation and negotiated the Settlement at arm's-length before a neutral, third-party mediator with ERISA experience. -- Plaintiffs conducted extensive informal discovery and Defendants produced nearly 23,000 pages of documents. -- Class Counsel is experienced in ERISA litigation and understood the merits of liability and damages arguments. -- Class Counsel received no objections after notice to the Settlement Class Members. Class Counsel requested for $1,666,500 in attorneys' fees, representing 30.3% of the settlement fund and a lodestar multiplier of 3.87. The Court found the requested amount "unreasonable." According to the Court, numerous other facts weigh against approval of the proposed attorneys' fees" including "this case resolved itself at an early stage of litigation," "discovery was limited, no depositions were taken, and the parties engaged in limited motions practice," and "the Court's skepticism of the proposed fee award's reasonableness is heightened by the inherent tension between the interests of the Settlement Class and Class Counsel." The Court instead held that Class Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees totaling $950,000, which represents approximately 19% of the Settlement Fund. The Court also held that the payment of $8,000 per Class Representative would be improper, particularly since the requested award would reduce the payment to other Settlement Class Members. Instead, each Named Plaintiff is entitled to $1,000.00 as an Incentive Award. After review of the receipts attached to Attorney Gyandoh's Supplemental Declaration, the Court approved the payment of $24,125.44 in litigation expenses to Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2lufAl The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER Tel: 610-890-0200 717-233-4101 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com The Defendants are represented by: John M. McIntire, Esq. Jacob N Szewczyk, Esq. O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP Tel: 202-362-0041 202-362-0041 E-mail: jmcintire@odonoghuelaw.com jszewczyk@odonoghuelaw.com - and - Samuel M. Schwartz-Fenwick, Esq. Thomas M. Horan, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Tel: 312-460-5000 312-460-5721 E-mail: sschwartz-fenwick@seyfarth.com thoran@seyfarth.com EMERALD OAK APARTMENTS: Mastriano Files Suit in Fla. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emerald Oak Apartments LLC. The case is styled as Kate Mastriano on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Emerald Oak Apartments LLC, Case No. 2025CA001960NC (Fla. Dist. Ct., Sarasota Cty., April 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "OTHER." Emerald Oak Apartments offers bedroom rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK 400 N Ashley Dr., Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: +1 352-753-8600 EMPLOYNET INC: Velaquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employnet, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Pedro Velaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Employnet, Inc., Cozad Trailer Sales, LLC, Reliance Trailer sales, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005925 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Employnet -- https://employnet.com/ -- provides flexible workforce and multi-channel solutions for any size company that needs to accomplish their global business initiatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com ENDUE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Doe Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENDUE, INC., d/b/a ENDUE SOFTWARE, and RHEUMATOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF BALTIMORE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00189-JAW (D. Maine, April 25, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about their current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to the Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former patients' PII/PHI, asserts the suit. Endue is a software company that sells operation management software for "infusion operators and home infusion pharmacies." Rheumatology Associates of Baltimore, LLC is a rheumatology healthcare provider based in Baltimore, Maryland. It uses the operation management software sold by Endue. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, Maine 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 E-mail: David.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE: Devlin Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Laura Devlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-05962 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03283-VM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Violation. Equitable -- http://equitable.com/-- is one of America's leading financial services companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Steven M Jodlowski, Esq. DiCello Levitt LLP 4747 Executive Dr., Ste. 240 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 923-3939 Email: briano@dicellolevitt.com stevej@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eaghan Seumas Davis, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Ste. Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Fax: (312) 253-1443 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com The Defendants are represented by: Marcella Louise Lape, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 320 S. Canal St., Ste. 47th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-5707 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Fax: (312) 407-0711 - and - Kurt Wm Hemr, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 573-4800 FISHER-PRICE INC: Raatz Sues Over Defective Infant Activity Center ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERESA RAATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISHER-PRICE, INC., and MATTEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00357 (W.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated who purchased defective Fisher-Price 3-in-1 SnugaPuppy Activity Center under the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, 15,300 products sold across the country are unfit for their intended purpose because they are dangerously unsafe for infants. On April 10, 2025, the Defendants made the recall announcement due to the potential for the detachable tissue box toy to come apart, exposing the small support brackets, posing a choking hazard to young children. Through marketing and sale, the Defendants represented that the Product is safe for Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Product purchased carried the potential for choking hazards. Consumers expect the products they purchased to be safe, especially products aimed towards children. At the time of their purchases, the Defendants did not notify Plaintiff, and similarly situated consumers, of the Product's choking hazard through the product labels, instructions, packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, therefore, acting in violation of state and federal laws, says the suit. Fisher-Price, Inc. is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FIVE BELOW INC: Pringle Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rhonda Pringle, individually, and on behalf other members of the general public similarly situated v. FIVE BELOW, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; 1616 HOLDINGS, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2504498 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00978. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for alleged: unpaid overtime; unpaid minimum wage; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records; wages not timely paid upon termination; failure to timely pay wages during employment a derivative claim for unlawful business practices; and a derivative claim for unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Alexander L. Grodan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com - and - Sarah A. Davidson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.davidson@morganlewis.com FLAGSHIP REST: Lippold Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagship Rest. Grp., LLC. The case is styled as Cameron Lippold, Scott Tomsons individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 2025LA000496 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., April 22, 2025). Flagship Restaurant Group -- https://www.flagshiprestaurantgroup.com/ -- operates in the restaurants industry and specializes in offering seafood items.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: Patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com FOX NEWS: Faces Poper Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewal -------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS POPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00977 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2025) is a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the California Auto Renewal Law in connection with automatically renewing subscriptions. According to the complaint, Fox Nation enrolls consumers, including Plaintiff, in automatic renewal membership programs without providing the "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by the state law, and posts charges to consumers' credit or debit cards for purported membership charges without first obtaining the consumers' affirmative consent to an agreement containing the requisite clear and conspicuous disclosures. Fox News Network LLC offers consumers access to a range of documentary, news, concerts, interview, and other videos, including a "free trial."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com GERBER PAYROLL: Coghill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth Coghill and Maxwell Tammen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GERBER PAYROLL SERVICES, a Foreign Profit Corporation; JOSH LIGER, in his official and individual capacities; BOYD GROUP SERVICES, INC., Case No. 25-2- 09383-2 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00759. The Complaint sets forth eight causes of action: alleged Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave, alleged Failure to Provide Meal Periods, alleged Failure to Provide Rest Periods, alleged Willful Refusal to Pay Wages, alleged Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, alleged Failure to Pay Unpaid Wages Due at Termination, as well as several individual claims, alleged "Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy," alleged "Disparate Treatment, and Failure to Accommodate a Disability," and alleged "Retaliation in Violation of RCW 49.60."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nolan Lim, Esq. NOLAN LIM LAW FIRM, PS 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 1850 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 963-9130 Email: nolan@nolanlimlaw.com - and - Morgan Mentzer, Esq. MX LAW, PLLC 710 Pacific Ave., #8 Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: (253) 693-0388 Email: morgan@mxlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Brian Rho, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bsmartell@littler.com brho@littler.com GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS: Chambers Sues Over Meds' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ DEBBIE CHAMBERS and CONNIE LACEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02984 (D.N.J., April 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who purchased Defendant's four different types of cholesterol medications: The medicines include Fenofibrate capsules (Lipofen generic), Pravastatin sodium tablets (Pravachol generic), Rosuvastatin tablets (Crestor or Ezallor generic) and Colesvelam hydrocholoride tablets (WelChol generic), that were manufactured, marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold by the Defendant. Accordingly, these drugs are designed to lower Cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, the FDA has determined that these medicines have CGMP Deviations. CGMP refers to Current Manufacturing Practice regulation enforced by the FDA and provides for systems that assure proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities. Adherence to the CGMP regulations assures the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drug products by requiring that manufactures of medications adequately control manufacturing operations. This includes establishing strong quality management system. The Plaintiffs bring this action because of the Defendant's fraud, false marketing, false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and breaches of state law consumer protection statutes. Through its own marketing, the Defendant is seeking out consumers who are in vulnerable positions given their need for medications related to blood pressure issues. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs suffered from high blood pressure and purchased the drugs mentioned above to lower their cholesterol. The Plaintiffs, along with many others, have spent countless dollars on these Drugs while expecting to be relieved of high blood pressure but to no avail, asserts the suit. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals is a multinational pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 E-mail: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GOLFBALLS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golfballs.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04512 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://golfballs.com (, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their non-disabled customers through gh https://golfballs.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Golfballs.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Golfballs.com. Yet, Golfballs.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Golfballs.com excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a variety of services, the suit adds. The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law GOODRX INC: C and M Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as C and M Pharmacy Inc. doing business as: Parvins Pharmacy and Katz Pharmacy, and others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01099 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03010-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C Pritzker, Esq. Bethany L Caracuzzo, Esq. Caroline Corbitt, Esq. Jonathan K Levine, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 692-0772 Fax: (415) 366-6110 Email: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com ccc@pritzkerlevine.co jkl@pritzkerlevine.com The Defendants are represented by: David Ramraj Singh, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway 4th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Fax: 6650-802-3100 GOODRX INC: Capitol Heights Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Capitol Heights Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00849 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03005-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Ko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 3rd Ave, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: dko@kellerrohrback.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Melien Brooks Crozier, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue, Room 3261 New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8005 Fax: (212) 310-8007 Email: jennifer.crozier@weil.com GOODRX INC: Community Care Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Community Care Pharmacy, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-09490 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03009-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Halley Wilder Josephs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Fax: (310) 789-3150 Email: hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com - and - Abby Lemert, Esq. Natasha J. Fernandez-Silber, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North La Salle Street 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Email: alemert@edelson.com nfernandezsilber@edelson.com - and - Henry J. Walter, Esq. Shawn Rabin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 729-2072 Email: hwalter@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com - and - William C Carmody Yoonhee Gloria Park SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West 395 9th Avenue 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 336-4330 Fax: (212) 336-8334 Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com gpark@susmangodfrey.com - and - Yaman Salahi, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery Street Suite 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 236-2352 Email: yaman@salahilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Ramraj Singh, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway 4th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Fax: 6650-802-3100 Email: david.singh@weil.com GOODRX INC: Gus Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Gus Pharmacy, LLC doing business as: Kennedy Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00937 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03008-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina H. Connolly Sharp, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and - Benjamin J. Eichel, Esq. BONI ZACK AND SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 822-0200 Fax: (610) 822-0206 Email: beichel@bonizack.com - and - Sean P. Greene, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 222 Pacific Coast Highway, 10th Floor El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (415) 544-6453 Email: sgreene@girardsharp.com The Defendants are represented by: David Ramraj Singh, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway 4th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Fax: 6650-802-3100 Email: david.singh@weil.com GOODRX INC: Melrose Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melrose Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00915 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03003-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allyson Lindsey Snow, Esq. Mark D Boesen, Esq. BOESEN & SNOW LAW 8501 E Princess Dr., Ste. 220 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Phone: (480) 687-2380 Fax: (602) 581-3146 Email: asnow@bslawusa.com mboesen@bslawusa.com - and – David J. Ko, Esq. Derek W Loeser, Esq. Rachel C Bowanko, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. Vinh Thai Le, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 3rd Ave, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: dko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com rbowanko@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com vle@kellerrohrback.com - and – Gary A. Gotto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP - PHOENIX, AZ 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600 Phone: (602) 230-6322 Fax: (602) 248-2822 Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com The Defendants are represented by: David J. Lender, Esq. Jennifer Brooks Crozier, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8823 Email: david.lender@weil.com Jennifer.Crozier@weil.com GOSHT INC: Calleja Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR JERONIMO CALLEJA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GOSHT INC. (d/b/a GOSHT), ABDURASHID IMINOV, and OLEKSANDR SHCHERBYNA, Case No. 1:25-cv-02315 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for the hours he worked, asserts the suit. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Calleja appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the suit adds. Plaintiff Calleja was employed as a dishwasher and pantry organizer. Defendants Abdurashid Iminov and Oleksandr Shcherbyna, serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant Corporation and, through this corporate entity, operate or operated the steak house as a joint or unified enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HAMILTON HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Morrow Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN MORROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a VITRUVIAN HEALTH and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00097-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2025) seeks to remedy the harms Defendants caused to Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. As a condition of receiving services from Defendant Vitruvian Health, Plaintiff and other consumers are required to provide Defendant Vitruvian Health with personal information. When providing highly sensitive information to Vitruvian Health, consumers expect that Vitruvian Health will employ adequate data security practices to protect their information from unlawful disclosure. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff believes the personally identifiable information and protected health information that he provided to Vitruvian Health was unlawfully accessed and exfiltrated as a result of a cyber-attack experienced by NRS in July 2024, says the suit. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which it was entrusted for treatment with Defendant. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft, the suit asserts. Vitruvian Health is a health system serving northwest Georgia and southwest Tennessee. Nationwide Recovery Services is a company that provides collection services to companies including health care facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com HAMILTON HEALTH: Mitchell Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES MITCHELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a VITRUVIAN HEALTH, and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00133 (E.D. Tenn., April 22, 2025) arises from the occurrence of a data breach on or around July 5, 2024, when an unauthorized party gained access to NRS' network, compromising patients' and patient guardians' highly sensitive personal information. According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to timely detect and report the data breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their sensitive information.  In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class' sensitive information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendants violated state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former consumers and patients, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendants' possession.   Hamilton Health Care System Inc. d/b/a Vitruvian Health , a health care system and a client of Nationwide Recovery Services. Nationwide Recovery Services is a company that provides collection services to companies including health care facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC  980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03310 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://harlemglobetrotters.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., operates the Harlem Globetrotters online retail store, as well as the Harlem Globetrotters interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal HEALTH CARE TEMPORARIES: Carter Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Margaret Carter, individually and for others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE TEMPORARIES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01821 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay its Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant pays its Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked after 40 in a workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). Indeed, the Defendant uniformly misclassifies its Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. But the Defendant has never paid its Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis" as required for any relevant overtime exemption the Defendant might claim. the Defendant applies its straight time for overtime pay scheme to its Straight Time Employees regardless of any allegedly individualized differences. The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime premiums they are owed for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a home health care provider from July 2016 until July 2024. HCT is a professional home health care business that provides home health care services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays in the comfort of patient's homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 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 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Noohi Suit Over Mislabeled Snack Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- NARGUESS NOOHI, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV11697 (Cal. Super., April 21, 2025) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in advertising and labeling its products. During the Class Period, the Defendant allegedly labeled Pirate's Booty snacks as containing "no artificial preservatives" when they contain citric acid and lactic acid. Consumption of manufactured citric acid has been associated with adverse health events like joint pain with swelling and stiffness, muscular and stomach pain, as well as shortness of breath. The Defendant uses synthetic manufactured citric acid in the products, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the class members have been misled into purchasing products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the Products would not contain artificial preservatives. The Hershey Company is an American multinational confectionery company headquartered in Hershey, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com HERTZ CORPORATION: L.B. Files Suit in W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hertz Corporation, et al. The case is styled as L.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Cleo Communications, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00288-SRB (W.D. Mo., April 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/us/en/ -- commonly known as Hertz, is an American car rental company headquartered in Estero, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com HIBAR INC: Cazares Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HiBar, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-595 (E.D. Wisc., April 25, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Hellohibar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services PPC International provides to their non-disabled customers through Hellohibar.com. Hellohibar.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Acro International. Yet, Desiclik.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen reader software. The Plaintiff has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Desiclik.com as a result of accessibility barriers on Desiclik.com. The Defendant controls and operates Hellohibar.com in the State of Wisconsin and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law HIKVISION USA INC: Fernald Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hikvision USA, Inc. The case is styled as James Fernald, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Hikvision USA, Inc., Case No. 25STCV11843 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Hikvision -- https://www.hikvision.com/en/ -- provides top-of-the-line AIoT solutions and reliable security camera systems to empower advanced monitoring and automation and improve security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com HOME DEPOT INC: Emami Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Barzin Emami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT, INC., FRIGIDAIRE/ELECTROLUX, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND PAT HODGE, Case No. 24SL-CC07739 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00551. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Home Depot for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and for fraudulent misrepresentation related to Home Depot's sale of refrigerators manufactured by Defendant Frigidaire/Electrolux ("Frigidaire"). The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot violated the MMPA and made fraudulent representations by, inter alia, "selling defective refrigerators," "representing that the refrigerators were fit for their ordinary use," and "failing to provide refunds" or otherwise honor warranties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.0651 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com - and - Kathy Huynh, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.768.0650 Facsimile: 510.768.0651 Email: Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com HOME DEPOT: Franklin Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Travis Franklin, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV001483 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03657. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf of a putative class for: alleged violation of California's unfair competition law; alleged failure to pay minimum wages; alleged failure to pay overtime wages; alleged failure to provide meal periods; alleged failure to provide rest periods; alleged failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; alleged failure to reimburse business expenses; alleged failure to pay wages when due upon termination; and alleged failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.949.399.7107 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com INSURANCEZEBRA INC: Discloses Private Info to FB, Google, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STACY PENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURANCEZEBRA, INC., d/b/a THE ZEBRA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03531-LJC (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) arises from the Defendant's unlawful conduct in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Constitution. This class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used Defendant's web-based insurance comparison service, thezebra.com, to search for, obtain, or compare different insurance quotes. The Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with third parties Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. and Google LLC to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected personal information related to insurance. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions. By failing to procure consent before enabling Facebook and Google's interception of these communications, and by disclosing such information to Facebook and Google, the Defendant violates the laws. InsuranceZebra, Inc. owns and operates the insurance comparison website nationwide and found at thezebra.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ehorne@bursor.com INTERNET WINES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Internet Wines & Spirits Co, Case No. 1:25-cv-04509 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Internet Wines & Spirits provides to their non-disabled customers through https://internetwines.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA, says the suit. Internet Wines & Spirits Co operates the website that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Internet Wines & Spirits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law INTREPID CREDIT: Meyer Sues Over Unfair Overdraft Fee Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- HOLGER MEYER, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTREPID CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00037-TJC (D. Mont., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by using deceptive, unclear, and ambiguous language that fails to notify its customers, including Plaintiff, of true overdraft fee practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant provides its accountholders with an Overdraft Opt-In disclosure agreement. The Defendant's Opt-In Form fails to provide a clear and unambiguous description of both the how and when its accountholders can expect to be assessed overdraft fees in clear violation of the requirements of the EFTA and Regulation E. Because Regulation E prohibits financial institutions from charging any overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions without first obtaining affirmative consent based on a proper and accurate disclosure of its overdraft practices as presented in a stand-alone opt-in disclosure agreement, Defendant's assessment of overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions against consumers has been and continues to be illegal, says the suit. Intrepid Credit Union is a credit union with more than $300 million in assets that maintains branches throughout Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq. TOWE & FITZPATRICK, PLLC 619 S. W. Higgins, Suite O P.O. Box 1745 Missoula, MT 59806 Telephone: (406) 829-1669 Facsimile: (406) 493-0538 E-mail: jfitz@towefitzlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: chris@jefirm.com JUSTANSWER LLC: Ninth Circuit Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, consisting of Judges Ryan D. Nelson, Richard A. Paez, and Sandra S. Ikuta, affirmed a lower court decision that denied JustAnswer LLC's motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action captioned as Kseniya Godun et al. vs JustAnswer LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06051-JD (N.D. Cal.). "This appeal asks whether users of justanswer.com are bound by its Terms of Service. Answering this question requires us to consider whether the users were on inquiry notice of proposed contractual terms and whether we can fairly infer that their use of the site signaled an agreement to contract," said Judge Nelson, who penned the decision for the panel. The Ninth Circuit Court concluded that "no meeting of the minds took place" and affirmed the district court's denial of JustAnswer's motion to compel arbitration. JustAnswer owns and operates justanswer.com, a website that connects users with subject-matter experts. Plaintiffs Tasha Davis, Kristie Nelson, Kseniya Godun, Moya McDowell, Latoya Foust, and Renee Pettit accessed justanswer.com to get answers to their questions. They created accounts and paid between $1-$5 to ask those questions. Under the Terms of Service, paying for answers to those initial questions automatically enrolled them in a recurring monthly subscription that cost between $46-$60 per month. Plaintiffs brought this putative class action, alleging that JustAnswer violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693 et seq., and California's and other states' consumer protection laws by enrolling them in the monthly subscription service without their consent and making cancellation difficult. JustAnswer, in turn, moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration provision in its Terms of Service. The Ninth Circuit held that in determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, federal courts apply state-law principles of contract formation, acknowledging that while new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract. One such principle is the requirement that "mutual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct, is the touchstone of contract." In California, "internet contracts are classified by the way in which the user purportedly gives their assent to be bound by the associated terms: browsewraps, clickwraps, scrollwraps, and sign-in wraps." According to the Ninth Circuit, the case concerned a "sign-in wrap" agreement, under which a link to the Terms of Service was provided to Plaintiffs but they were not required to separately indicate that they had read or agree with those terms before using justanswer.com's services. Two-Step Test for Online Contract Formation The Ninth Court applied an inquiry-notice test requiring: (1) The website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) The consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms. In a concurring opinion, Judge Nelson explained the first step of the inquiry-notice internet contract formation test asks whether "the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound." This test considers both "the visual design of the webpages and the context of the transaction." Visual conspicuousness is "a matter of whether an advisal is 'displayed in a font size and format such the court can fairly assume that a reasonably prudent Internet user would have seen it.'" Courts examine factors such as "the location of the advisal on the webpage or the font size, color, and contrast (against the page's background)." The context of the transaction includes factors like whether it "contemplates entering into a continuing, forward-looking relationship," involves "creating an account requiring a full registration process," or requires "credit card information." The second step of the inquiry-notice internet contract formation test asks us to consider whether any action taken by the internet user -- such as clicking a button or checking a box – "unambiguously manifest[ed] his or her assent' to proposed contractual terms." The Ninth Circuit held, "Following California caselaw, we have held that such unambiguous manifestation of assent can only occur in the inquiry-notice context where an internet user is 'explicitly advised the act of clicking will constitute assent to the terms and conditions of an agreement.'" For example, text like "By clicking the Continue >> button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions," or 'By tapping "Play" I agree to the Terms of Service." The Ninth Circuit determined that "no Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate a claim": -- For Plaintiff Davis, "the advisal text is printed in relatively small text and not located 'directly above or below' the action ('Start my trial') button." Additionally, "the color of the advisal text blends into the background and is displayed in a lighter color than other text on the page." -- For Plaintiff Nelson, while "the issue of gray-on-gray text has been cured," the advisal "is not located directly above or below the action button and is displayed in relatively small text." -- For Plaintiffs Godun, Faust and McDowell, the advisal "failed to explicitly advise users of what action would constitute assent to any terms." It "lacked an explanatory phrase indicating that 'By clicking connect now' or 'By connecting,' or 'By chatting,' etc., she agreed to the terms." Instead, "it simply said 'I agree' without explaining more." "Plaintiffs were not on inquiry notice of JustAnswer's proposed contractual terms. So no contract was formed, and Plaintiffs never agreed to arbitrate their claims," Judge Nelson wrote. A copy of the Ninth Circuit Court's decision is available at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/15/24-2095.pdf Mark R. Sigmon, Eq., Matthew E. Lee, Esq., and John Nelson, Esq., at Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, represent the Plaintiffs-Appellees. Dominic E. Draye, Esq., Robert J. Herrington, Esq., Jessica Kemper, Esq., Michael Burshteyn, Esq., and Kristin L. O'Carroll, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig LLP, represent the Defendant-Appellant. KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dohrman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB DOHRMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01333-SAG (D. Md., April 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 9, 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Dec. 12, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity within its environment. Upon detection, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third party cybersecurity forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant’s failure to adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. He further brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Defendant is a provider of benefit enrollment services, helping clients manage employee benefits, payroll, and workforce management solutions across the United States and is headquartered in Sparks, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON, LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Melissa Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com KILLOWEN SOUTHSIDE: Manay Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Guido Gonzalo Aviles Manay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KILLOWEN SOUTHSIDE LLC and KILLOWEN WESTSIDE LLC d/b/a KEG & LANTERN and KILLOWEN CONSTRUCTION INC. and KIERAN BREEN, as an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-02218 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff worked 63 hours per week from February 2020 until January 2024, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Additionally, Plaintiff worked more than ten hours per day, 3 days per week from February 2020 until January 2024, however, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours, a blatant violation of the spread of hours provisions contained in the NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of his employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a helper, loader, unloader, organizer and stocker for Defendants' construction and bar businesses, while performing related miscellaneous duties at the instructions of the Defendants, from February 2020 until January 2024. KILLOWEN SOUTHSIDE LLC d/b/a KEG & LANTERN, is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 LA MEND INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LA MEND, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03311 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://us.sundaebody.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. LA MEND, INC., operates the Sundae Body online retail store, as well as the Sundae Body interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss "Palmer" Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- On January 3, 2024, Sarah Palmer filed a putative national class action complaint against La Rosa Realty, LLC in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Ms. Palmer alleges that she received two (2) brief pre-recorded calls one week apart to her cell phone from La Rosa Realty, LLC presenting her an employment opportunity as a real estate agent. Ms. Palmer seeks an undisclosed amount of monetary damages from La Rosa Realty, LLC for the alleged would-be injurious, isolated and opportunistic employment gestures to her through a purported nationwide class action. Ms. Palmer claims that the defendant violated her privacy, annoyed and harassed her, constituted a nuisance, and occupied her telephone line. On March 12, 2024, La Rosa Realty, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, which is still pending, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. La Rosa Holdings Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, specializes in providing real estate services platform integrating residential brokerage, mortgage, title, and insurance. La Rosa Holdings serves clients in the State of Florida. LABORATORY SERVICES: M.M. Sues Over Unprotected Health Info ----------------------------------------------------------- M.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY SERVICES COOPERATIVE, Defendant, Case No. Case 2:25-cv-00726 (W.D. Wash., April 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to adequately secure and protect the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected personal health information of Plaintiff and similarly situated patients. In order to receive diagnostic testing services from certain Planned Parenthood clinics, patients must entrust LSC with highly sensitive PII and PHI. LSC collects and uses this information in the course of its regular business operations as an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. To reassure patients, Planned Parenthood represents that it and its affiliates, including LSC, "respect and are committed to protecting the privacy of users of our websites, applications, and other online and electronic services." Despite these assurances, LSC failed to safeguard the patient information entrusted to it, resulting in a data breach that compromised the personal information of more than one million individuals, as announced by Defendant on April 10, 2020. As a result of Laboratory Services Cooperative's inadequate security measures and breach of its duties and obligations, the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members was unlawfully accessed and disclosed to an unauthorized criminal third party. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to address Defendant's failure to adequately safeguard the private information it collected and maintained on behalf of the Class. To remedy these legal violations, the Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys; fees, costs and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. Laboratory Services Cooperative is a designated non-profit, independent clinical laboratory headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com - and - Sabita Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landscape Development, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ana Rivera, an individual, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Landscape Development Inc., Landscape Development LLC, Case No. 25STCV11818 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Landscape Development, Inc. -- https://landscapedevelopment.com/ -- is a dominant landscape services provider specializing in high-touch, high quality customer experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle Rapoport, Esq. ARASH LAW 2960 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010-1101 Phone: 310-277-7529 Email: michelle@arashlaw.com LANZATECH GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ In May 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against LanzaTech f/k/a/ AMCI, AMCI Sponsor II LLC, and the individual directors of AMCI for purported damages arising from the February 10, 2023, merger between AMCI and Legacy LanzaTech. The Company was subsequently voluntarily dismissed from the case in July 2024, before it was required to respond to the Complaint. The Complaint asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty against the Director Defendants; and (ii) unjust enrichment against AMCI Sponsor and the Director Defendants. The Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the parties have not yet engaged in any discovery in connection with the litigation and Defendants have not yet been required to respond to the Complaint. The Company and the defendants believe the allegations and claims made in the Complaint are without merit. As the surviving entity following the merger at issue, the Company has certain indemnification obligations to the Director Defendants in connection with the defense of the litigation. The Company has notified the relevant D&O insurance carriers of the litigation and while the Director Defendants are covered for such costs by directors' and officers' insurance, such coverage is subject to a retention of $5,000,000. LASALLE APARTMENTS: Seeks To Stay Class Cert Bid Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE DAMARE, CYNTHIA SCOTT DAY, BRADY DVORAK, NOAH CARTER, CARLOS MATUS, SABRINA HARRIS, CHRISTIAN HEALY, ELENA WARD, ROBERT RADUCHEL, THOMAS BUTLER, ROSE BRIENZA, MELISSA SHAPCOTT, SETH KOREN, EVAN REINER, KAYLA BALENTINE, JORDAN BOILEAU, GIZELLE MENENDEZ, & MATAKALA KALUWE, JAQUELYN SLOAN, v. THE LASALLE APARTMENTS, & MICHAELS MANAGEMENT AFFORDABLE, LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00554-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to stay all proceedings related to the Plaintiff's second motion for class certification until such time as the Court rules on the Defendants' pending motion for a more definite statement. A stay is warranted on several grounds, including the need to clarify the Plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations, the threshold issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and considerations of judicial economy. Lastly, judicial economy strongly favors resolving foundational pleading and jurisdictional issues before engaging in the extensive process of class certification. Proceeding with class certification before Plaintiff has clarified the allegations in accordance with FRCP 8, and before the Court has had an opportunity to assess its jurisdiction, may result in an unnecessary expenditure of both judicial and party resources. On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against La Salle Apartments and Michael's Management Affordable, LLC in Northern District of Indiana of the 7th Circuit, South bend Division, Indiana. On Feb. 27, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Abizer Zanzi, the Court held a status hearing. On March 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint at Law against La Salle Apartments and Michael’s Management Affordable, LLC in Northern District of Indiana of the 7th Circuit, South Bend Division, Indiana. Lasalle Apartments a residential community featuring one and two bedroom apartments. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45ZWQZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer L. Williams, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 250 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (312) 565-1400 E-mail: jlwilliams@grsm.com LASERSHIP INC: Limas Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ana Claudia Camargo Limas, individually and for all others similarly situated v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a OnTrac Final Mile; UNITED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, LLC; SAMER ALAMRAT; and CARLA ROCHA, Case No. 2484CV03269 was removed from the Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11046. The Complaint asserts two causes of action against OnTrac under Massachusetts law: independent contractor misclassification; failure to pay wages. As to OnTrac, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all individuals who have performed delivery services for OnTrac in Massachusetts and whom OnTrac classified as independent contractors, rather than employees" during the statutory period applicable to this action."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook S. Lane, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Email: brook@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel R. Sonneborn, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU AND PACHIOS, LLP 60 State Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-226-3852 Email: dsonneborn@preti.com - and - Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. Andrew Butcher, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 255-7200 Email: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com abutcher@scopelitis.com - and - Janis E. Steck, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 637-1777 Email: jsteck@scopelitis.com LINAMAR STRUCTURES: Wright Seeks OK to Send Notice -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNEDY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINAMAR STRUCTURES USA (MICHIGAN), INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:24-cv-12721-SDK-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Permitting the Plaintiff to send notice to the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective; (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative FLSA Collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly employees who worked for Linamar Structures USA (Michigan), Inc. during the past three years and were paid shift differentials, non- discretionary bonuses, and/or any other compensation subject to the FLSA "regular rate" calculation. (the "FLSA Collective"). (4) Appointing the undersigned as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. The Plaintiff Wright worked for the Defendant as an Hourly Employee from Aug. 5, 2021, to Aug. 19, 2024, and was most recently paid a base hourly rate of $27.80. The Defendant is an engineer and manufacturer of industrial, agricultural, and other vehicles, machines and components. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WZEapU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com MARIO'S AIR: Ullom Appointed as Mediator in Germain --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germain v. Mario's Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an endorsed order appointing Paul J. Ullom as mediator in the case. -- The parties are directed to file a notice of mediation on or before April 24, 2025, and to mediate this dispute before June 18, 2025. -- The deadline to respond to the pending motion for class certification is suspended and will be reset at a later time. -- The pretrial conference and trial term will be rescheduled by separate notice. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Mario's Air offers repair, installation, maintenance, duct cleaning, air quality testing, dehumidifying, and UV illumination.[CC] MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order referring motion to Certify Class to Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. Marriott International owns over 30 hotel and timeshare brands with 8,785 locations and 1,597,380 rooms across its network.[CC] MATTHEW WEISS: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOES 1 and 2, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MATTHEW WEISS, HIGH POINT UNIVERSITY, and KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00303 (M.D.N.C., April 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants seeking justice for the unauthorized access and misuse of personal information -- an abuse so severe that High Point University students and student-athletes are now receiving formal notification from the U.S. Department of Justice that their private information, including intimate photos and videos, have been exposed. Students and alumni connected to High Point University from 2015 to 2023 -- many of them student-athletes—have been subjected to a deeply troubling and unlawful breach of privacy, stemming from the actions of former University of Michigan and Baltimore Ravens football coach Matthew Weiss, whose gross and despicable violations of their privacy were facilitated by institutional negligence. The action is brought to hold the Defendants accountable for failing to protect their students from foreseeable harm. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was a student athlete at High Point University between 2006- 2010 and was a member of the Cheerleading Team. High Point University is a private university in High Point, North Carolina (Guilford County). High Point University enrolls approximately 5,781 undergraduate and graduate students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Mills, Esq. BURNS DAY & PRESNELL, P.A. PO Box 10867 Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 782-1441 Facsimile: (919) 782-2311 E-mail: Jmills@bdppa.com - and - Lisa M. Esser, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: LEsser@sommerspc.com JThompson@sommerspc.com - and - Megan Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonnani@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com MDL 3149: Schwartz v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schwartz v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00230-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Schwartz Suit to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Hon. Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Schwartz suit is consolidated in the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3149) RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. According to the MDL Panel, the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively "PowerSchool"), and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization The Plaintiffs are students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of PowerSchool's data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts, centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts, MDL Panel says. PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTMEFs at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Strelzin v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Strelzin v. PowerSchool Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00140-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Strelzin Suit to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Hon. Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Strelzin suit is consolidated in the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3149) RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. According to the MDL Panel, the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively "PowerSchool"), and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization The Plaintiffs are students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of PowerSchool's data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts, centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts, MDL Panel says. PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LbpXf0 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Vargha v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vargha v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00110-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Vargha Suit to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Hon. Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Vargha suit is consolidated in the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3149) RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. According to the MDL Panel, the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively "PowerSchool"), and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization The Plaintiffs are students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of PowerSchool's data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts, centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts, MDL Panel says. PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d6GZI2 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: White v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00207-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring White Suit to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Hon. Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The White suit is consolidated in the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3149) RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. According to the MDL Panel, the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively "PowerSchool"), and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization The Plaintiffs are students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of PowerSchool's data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts, centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts, MDL Panel says. PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ykviFS at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Zarif v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zarif v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. et al., the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Zarif Suit to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Hon. Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Zarif suit is consolidated in the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3149) RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. According to the MDL Panel, the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively "PowerSchool"), and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization The Plaintiffs are students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the sufficiency of PowerSchool's data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts, centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts, MDL Panel says. PowerSchool provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jINise at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Blank Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Blank, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 2:25-cv-01570 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03576-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C. 2354 Wehrle Drive Buffalo, NY 14221 Phone: (844) 716-4653 Email: bg@goldsteingreco.com MONSANTO COMPANY: DiGuardia Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salvatore DiGuardia Jr., as Presumed Representative of the Estate of Salvatore DiGuardia Sr. (Deceased), and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 2:25-cv-01572 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03577-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian A. Goldstein, Esq. GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C. 2354 Wehrle Drive Buffalo, NY 14221 Phone: (844) 716-4653 Email: bg@goldsteingreco.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Omiatek Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tom Omiatek, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00381 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03579-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Washington Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jadyn Washington, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marcel Washington, Deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00382-NCC- was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03580-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken B. Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N. Stetson Avenue, 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 462-1700 Fax: (312) 756-0045 Email: info@molllawgroup.com MONTANA FEDERAL: Faces Brusati Suit Over Deceptive Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN BRUSATI, on behalf of herself all others similarly situated v. MONTANA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00032-JTJ (D. Mont., April 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has economically harmed Plaintiff and its other customers through the use of deceptive, unclear, and ambiguous language which fails to notify its customers of Defendant's true overdraft fee practices and accordingly fails to provide customers like Plaintiff and the putative class with the ability to plan their finances effectively to avoid these onerous fees in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. Regulation E requires that, before a financial institution may charge overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on one-time debit card and ATM transactions, it must obtain the consumer's affirmative consent to participate in the overdraft service. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Montana and a resident of Great Falls, Montana, in this District. The Plaintiff has maintained a checking account with Defendant at all times material hereto. 8. Defendant is a citizen of Montana and maintains its principal place of business in this District in Great Falls, Montana. The Defendant is a credit union with more than $340 million in assets, that maintains branches in this District. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Montana and a resident of Great Falls, Montana. The Plaintiff has maintained a checking account with the Defendant. MONTANA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is a credit union with more than $340 million in assets, that maintains branches in this District. The Company is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers, including the Plaintiff and members of the Classes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq. TOWE & FITZPATRICK, PLLC 619 S. W. Higgins, Suite O P.O. Box 1745 Missoula, MT 59806 Telephone: (406) 829-1669 Facsimile: (406) 493-0538 E-mail: jfitz@towefitzlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com MUBI INC: Faces Cejudo Suit Over Automatic Membership Enrollment ---------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR CEJUDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUBI, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03652 (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant automatically enrolls consumers at the end of the membership or trial period, for an additional month or year of membership and automatically charges the consumer's payment method. According to the complaint, MUBI does not provide clear and conspicuous disclosures or obtain affirmative consent to do so in violation of the Automatic Renewal Law. Plaintiff Cejudo is domiciled in Panorama City, California. The proposed class includes citizens of California. MUBI is an online movie and video streaming service. It sells monthly and yearly subscriptions to its library of streaming video content, along with weekly movie tickets. MUBI also offers free trials, or a discounted trial period, to entice customers to sign up.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com MYKONIAN HOUSE: Faces Mert Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- SAVAS MERT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MYKONIAN HOUSE LLC d/b/a MYKONIAN HOUSE, GREGORY POLITIS, and ALINA BORYS-SZEWCZYK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03300 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. This action concerns a hostile and unlawful work environment created by Defendants improperly hijacking tips that rightfully and legally belong to Plaintiff and other employees; refusing to provide with the bare minimum accommodations required by law, such as breaks during lengthy shifts, overtime compensation, and necessary employment documents; and, Defendants' alleged blatant and hostile harassment and physical abuse of its employees. Plaintiff Mert began his employment as a server at Defendants' restaurant in approximately September 2023 and was unlawfully terminated in February 2025. He was employed by Defendants for approximately 17 months. He brings this action following the unlawful and retaliatory termination of his employment by Defendants after he reported the many wrongs they committed and demanded better treatment. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Greek restaurant located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Zuckerberg, Esq. Jacob B. Orgel, Esq. PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 421-4100 NIKE INC: Faces Cheema Securities Class Action Suit Over NFTs ------------------------------------------------------------- JAGDEEP CHEEMA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02305 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) contends that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated investors would never have purchased the Nike Nike-themed non-fungible tokens (NFTs) at the prices they did, or at all, had they known that the Nike NFTs were unregistered securities or that Nike would cause the rug to be pulled out from under them. The Plaintiff and class members purchased NFTs, crypto collectibles, or other crypto assets (The Nike NFTs) from a Nike subsidiary called RTFKT, Inc. (RTFKT) which Nike had acquired to capitalize on the crypto bull market in late 2021. The Nike NFTs were designed to be traded, peer-to-peer, on the secondary market. In addition to the secondary market sales (of which Nike took a cut), Nike created a gamified ecosystem in which the Nike NFTs could be used to complete challenges and quests to reveal rewards and earn prizes, including limited edition, real-life Nike products. As a result of Nike's promotion of the unregistered securities and also its rug pull, Plaintiff and the Class -- many of whom are retail investors who lack the technical and financial sophistication necessary to have evaluated the risks associated with their investment in The Nike NFTs and were denied the information that would have been contained in the materials required for the registration of The Nike NFTs -- have suffered significant damages in an amount to be proven at trial, says the suit. The prospect of these prizes and rewards, in turn, provided value to the Nike NFTs, stimulating demand, eliciting secondary market trading and, for a time, rising prices. In short, Nike used its iconic brand and marketing prowess to hype, promote, and prop up the unregistered securities that RTFKT sold. Because The Nike NFTs derived their value from the success of a given promoter and project -- here, Nike and its marketing efforts -- investors purchased this digital asset with the hope that its value would increase in the future as the project grows in popularity based on the Nike brand. As this type of digital asset is properly classified as a security under relevant (including federal) law, the issuers of this type of token are required to register them and file relevant statements with the authorities, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and comply with relevant securities laws, the suit alleges. The Nike NFTs were never registered as such. What is more, after capitalizing on the boom in crypto assets, Nike caused the rug to be pulled out from under the Nike NFTs. In December of 2024, RTFKT announced on its official twitter page that it was winding down operations (in a twitter post from the official RTFKT twitter account entitled, strangely enough, "A New Chapter for RTFKT"). Investors were decimated. With the end of RTFKT and, by extension, Nike's many targeted promotional initiatives aimed at hyping up the Nike NFTs and stimulating demand, the reason that so many had purchased the Nike NFTs -- to complete quests to gain access to additional NFTs or physical Nike products, and/or to resell the Nike NFTs on the secondary market to others -- evaporated instantly, contends the suit. NIKE, INC. designs, develops, and markets athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessory products for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com philkim@rosenlegal.com mcohen@rosenlegal.com NIRVANA WATER: Lorber Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- HALLIE LORBER and JAMES FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIRVANA WATER SCIENCES CORP. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-03370 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2025) seeks to recover minimum wages and/or overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are employees and/or former employees of Nirvana who are owed minimum wages, straight-time and/or overtime compensation and/or other perquisites of employment and who bring this lawsuit and, in particular, the claims under the FLSA against Defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Nirvana is Plaintiffs' employer or former employer, as that term is defined under the FLSA, and is alleged to be an innovative wellness company focused on functional beverages. Nirvana's principal place of business is in New York and its corporate headquarters is located at One Nirvana Plaza, Forestport, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jed M. Weiss, Esq. Steven I. Adler, Esq. MANDELBAUM BARRETT, P.C. 570 Lexington Ave 21st floor, New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 776-1834 OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KINGSTON OSBORNE and DAVID SMITH, individually and as representatives Of the collective of plaintiffs described herein, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00439-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension of its time to file its response to the motion for conditional certification from April 21, 2025 to May 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs Kingston Osborne and David Smith filed the Motion for Conditional Certification on April 7, 2025. Per the Local Rules, OTK’s response is currently due no later than April 21, 2024. OTK requests an additional fourteen (14) days to file its response, making the deadline May 5, 2025. As the Court is aware, Easter is April 20, 2025, and counsel for OTK have various holiday and travel plans during the holiday weekend. In addition, Plaintiffs have submitted 20 declarations in support of the Motion for Conditional Certification. Additional time would assist OTK in properly evaluating these declarations and gathering sworn declarations in opposition, if necessary. Outokumpu manufactures steel products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIrkpH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Devin C. Dolive, Esq. Ronald W. Flowers, Jr., Esq. H. William Wasden, Esq. Cheri Turnage Gatlin, Esq. Natalie A. Cosmich, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-3000 Facsimile: (205) 458-5100 E-mail: ddolive@burr.com rflowers@burr.com bwasden@burr.com cgatlin@burr.com ncosmich@burr.com PAYWARD INC: Faces Rose Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ANA ROSE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees Plaintiff v. PAYWARD, INC. dba KRAKEN; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03524 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and all current and former client engagement employees of Defendant who were paid a salary, not paid overtime, and were classified as exempt during the Class period under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This collective action is brought because of Defendant's unlawful policy of classifying these employees as exempt from overtime and regularly subjecting them to working in excess of forty hours a week without overtime compensation. The Plaintiff also brings this case on behalf of the Collective Employees for violating the FLSA's mandatory record keeping requirements such as start and end times and meal periods that it is obligated to keep for non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff was a former employee who worked for the Defendants as a client engagement specialist within the United States. Payward, Inc. is a cryptocurrency exchange that allows users to buy, sell, and trade digital assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 302 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com mcrawford@maralawfirm.com PEOPLEREADY INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PeopleReady, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Antonio Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. PeopleReady, Inc., Atherton Homes, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0005784 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." PeopleReady -- https://www.peopleready.com/ -- a TrueBlue company (NYSE: TBI), specializes in quick and reliable on-demand labor and highly skilled workers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Faces Noguez Suit Over Mislabeled Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALIA NOGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMAVITE LLC d/b/a NATURE MADE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03529-LB (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) is a putative class action that Plaintiff brings on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's Nature Made B12 Extra Strength supplements pursuant to the California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant gives consumers the impression that the products provide an "EXTRA STRENGTH" dose of vitamin B12 and charges consumers a price premium when they provide no greater vitamin B12 availability or nutritional value than Defendant's lower-dosed and lower priced B12 supplements. However, Defendant's claims are allegedly false because its products are no stronger and do not provide "extra strength" of B12 than its much lower-dosed and lower-priced products, i.e., 500 mcg of B12. Yet Defendant charges a price premium for its products that provide no significant greater nutritional value than its lower-dosed counterparts. The Defendant conceals from reasonable consumers that higher doses of B12 do not mean increased bioavailability, says the suit. Pharmavite LLC, d/b/a Nature Made, is engaged in the nutritional supplements industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com PIM BRANDS USA: Perkins Suit Removed to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIM BRANDS USA, INC., Case No. 504177/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02280. The Plaintiff alleges as "Count I" of her Complaint, on behalf of herself and the purported class, that the packaging and labeling of the Fruit Bars violated the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), thereby violating New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350 by promoting the Fruit Bars as being "Made with Whole Fruit" and including the words "Real Strawberry Fruit Bars," along with pictures of strawberries, on the Product's packaging and labeling, which Plaintiff asserts was "unfair and deceptive to consumers."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald J. Levine, Esq. David R. King, Esq. Elizabeth A. Mancuso, Esq. HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP Two Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 592-1400 Facsimile: (212) 592-1500 Email: rlevine@herrick.com dking@herrick.com emancuso@herrick.com PIZZA AL FRESCO: Marin Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CASTANEDA MARIN, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated Plaintiff v. PIZZA AL FRESCO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, JOSE LUIS DURAN, Individually, JAVIER GONZALEZ, Individually, and PEDRO MARQUEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-80481 (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint arises from the Defendants' practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff proper minimum wages and overtime premiums. The Defendants also unlawfully retained a portion of Plaintiff's tips for themselves, including but not limited to through distribution of tips to salaried managers. When Plaintiff raised these unlawful practices to Defendants, he was terminated in retaliation for these complaints, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid wait-staff employee at Defendants' restaurant from approximately September 2021 through January 2025. Pizza Al Fresco, LLC is a pizza casual full-service restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com POWER ELECTRONICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hoff, Nathan v. Power Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00098 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order granting in part Parties' motion as follows: -- The parties ask the court to set a deadline of May 9, 2025, for submitting their settlement approval documents and to stay deadlines in the meantime. -- The court will not stay the case indefinitely. But Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification is extended from April 21 to May 9. -- If the parties file their motion to approve the settlement on or before May 9, the court will strike the deadline for seeking class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Allen Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jessica Allen, Jenna Berry, on behalf of C.A., a minor, and G.B., a minor; and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00410 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01006-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Okoni Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Shandrelle Okoni, individually and on behalf of A. H-M. 1, L.M., and A. H-M 2, minors v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00231 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00983-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Fax: (415) 358-6293 Email: mram@forthepeople.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Brown Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Richard Brown, B.E.B., J.B.B., Julie Johnson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00256 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00974-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard F. Lombardo, Esq. SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN 911 Main Street, Suite 2000 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 931-0500 Fax: (816) 931-5775 Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com - and - Andrew Daniel Bluth SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 248-8478 Fax: (619) 255-1515 Email: abluth@singletonschreiber.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Cabrera Suit Transferred to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Vivian Cabrera, L.C., A Minor, By and through their legal guardian Vivian Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Bain Capital, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-02026 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00996-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO PC 5 Becker Farm Road, 2nd Floor Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Yenis V. Argueta Guevara, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 596-9188 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Campbell Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Nickolaus Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01549 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01001-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas Ulysses Murphy, II, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (516) 477-8339 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com - and - Monica Mleczko, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 235-4082 - and - William Douglas Spelder, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 191 N. Wacker 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 845-1135 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Campbell Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Nickolaus Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00310 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00984-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas Murphy, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (516) 477-8339 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: mboltax@hausfeld.com pizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Vargha Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Krystal Vargha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00110 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00943-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC P. O. Box 12174 San Diego, CA 92112 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Fax: (800) 867-6779 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL: Martinez-Turnbow Suit Transferred to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sheilah Valerie Martinez-Turnbow, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, John Doe,and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00165 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00958-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree St., Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 282-4806 Fax: (504) 608-1465 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Sara Beth Craig, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 231-0909 Fax: (415) 840-9435 Email: scraig@peifferwolf.com READY CAPITAL: Faces Goebel Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID GOEBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. READY CAPITAL CORPORATION, THOMAS E. CAPASSE, and ANDREW AHLBORN, Case No. 1:25-cv-03373 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ready Capital common stock between August 8, 2024, and March 2, 2025, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case concerns Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the severe impact that significant non-performing loans in Ready Capital's CRE portfolio were having on the Company's business. During the Class Period, the Defendants stated that the Company had "successfully executed several initiatives" aimed at improving financial performance, including asset management activities, that purportedly "further derisked" the Company's CRE portfolio. The Defendants also stated that Ready Capital's CRE portfolio was "showing stabilizing credit metrics," that the Company was seeing "normalization" of its CRE business to "historical levels," and that a decline in credit quality or performance of existing loans in the Company's CRE loan book was "a low risk." On March 3, 2025, before the market opened, Ready Capital announced its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, reporting fourth quarter 2024 net loss of $1.80 per share and full year 2024 net loss of $2.52 per share. Defendant Capasse stated that "aggressive reserving on problem loans" and a "rightsizing of the dividend to current cash earnings" were needed to "accelerate the path to recovery." Capasse further explained that Ready Capital had to take "decisive actions to stabilize" its "balance sheet going forward by fully reserving for all of our non-performing loans in our CRE portfolio." This included, among other actions, taking roughly $284 million in combined Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) and valuation allowances for all of 2024 to mark the Company's non-performing loans to current values. This represents a staggering increase of over $282 million as compared to the prior year. The Company further revealed that its total leverage increased to "3.8x," up from the prior quarter's total leverage of "3.3x," and that it cut its dividend to $0.125 per share. 6. On this news, Ready Capital's stock price fell $1.86 per share, or 26.8%, from $6.93 per share on March 2, 2025, to close at $5.07 per share on March 3, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Ready Capital common stock during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. Ready Capital is a real estate finance company that originates, acquires, finances, and services lower-to-middle-market ("LMM") commercial real estate (CRE) loans, small business administration loans, and other real estate-related investments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Ross Shikowitz, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 75 Virginia Road White Plains, New York 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com - and - Adam McCall, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com ROSEVILLE, CA: Settlement in Homeless Persons Case Wins Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. William B. Shubb of the United Stated District Court of Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement in the case, Marcus Hill-Colbert et al. v. City of Roseville et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-1651 (E.D. Cal.). In 2010, the City adopted Roseville Municipal Code section 8.02.316, which authorizes officers of the Roseville Police Department to exclude individuals from the City's parks for violating "any applicable ordinance." Roseville Municipal Code section 8.02.020 defines a "park" as "any park, dog park, town square, library, museum, stream bed area, bicycle trail, open space, or other facility owned or operated by the city for park or recreation purposes." The gravamen of plaintiffs' claims is that defendants enforced section 8.02.316 against "involuntarily homeless persons without access to shelter," including themselves, in contravention of federal and state law. Plaintiffs asserted federal and state claims for unconstitutional searches and seizures, false imprisonment, due process violations, cruel and unusual punishment, violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Following negotiations involving former Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, while on the bench and later as a private mediator, the parties reached a settlement involving municipal code modifications and payments to class members. The putative class includes all homeless persons excluded from a Roseville park under section 8.02.316, but not arrested at the time, within two years before September 20, 2022. The proposed gross settlement fund includes: (1) $250 incentive awards to each of the seven named plaintiffs, totaling $1,750; (2) Individual payments from $50 to $1,000 depending on the exclusion period length; (3) Additional payments of $150 to $1,500 to class members who lost property; and (4) Reasonable fees and costs for class counsel to administer the claims process. The court also provisionally certified the class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy were met. Common legal and factual issues predominated, particularly regarding enforcement of the ordinance against unhoused individuals. The class is estimated to include up to 250 persons. The court approved the proposed notice plan but cautioned that additional measures may be needed to ensure homeless class members receive adequate notice. A final approval hearing to evaluate the settlement's fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy was originally scheduled for July 21, 2025. In a Stipulation and Order signed by Judge Shubb, the Final Approval Hearing was continued to Sept. 2. The court emphasized heightened scrutiny due to the pre-certification settlement and reserved judgment on attorneys' fees and incentive award. The settlement includes changes to the City's exclusionary policies. The court acknowledged ongoing litigation risks, particularly in light of the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision, which weakened some constitutional claims. The action remains stayed pending final approval. If final approval is not granted, the preliminary approval order will be void ab initio, and the parties will return to their positions before entry of that order. Litigation or further negotiations may resume as appropriate. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZ8M3A from PacerMonitor.com. SC JOHNSON: Ziploc Bags & Containers Not Microwave Safe, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LINDA CHESLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03655-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant affirmatively markets its Ziploc bags and containers as "Microwave Safe" and suitable for "Freezer" use, creating the reasonable impression that they are fit for use in the microwave and freezer, but in reality, the Products are made from polyethylene and polypropylene -- materials that scientific and medical evidence shows release microplastics when microwaved and frozen -- making them fundamentally unfit for microwave and freezer use. Accordingly, relying on Defendant's false misrepresentations, individuals have unwittingly exposed themselves and their families to undisclosed microplastics during routine kitchen practices. The Defendant has compromised its Products' integrity for profit and to gain an unfair competitive edge in the marketplace. The Defendant allegedly fails to inform consumers that when the Products are heated in a microwave or frozen as intended, directed and instructed for ordinary use, they release microplastics that are then leached into consumers' food contained therein. The Material Omission is meaningful to consumers as studies show that the ingestion of microplastics poses serious health risks, including potential harm to the digestive tract, immune system and reproductive system. The Material Omission leads reasonable consumers to believe that the Products do not pose a risk of microplastic exposure and contamination of their food, which in turn creates a false sense of security, asserts the suit. The Defendant fails to provide any warning to consumers regarding the release of microplastics when the Products are used as intended, directed and instructed, despite its knowledge of this fact. The Defendant has thus breached its legal obligations to consumers by failing to disclose clearly and conspicuously on the Products' front packaging and labeling that the Products leach microplastics into consumers' food through the ordinary use of the Products—namely microwaving and freezing, the suit alleges. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC. is an American multinational corporation, privately held manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com SIGNALHIRE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gaul Due Dec. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaul v. SignalHire LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01301 (C.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 10, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- Motion for class certification is due by Dec. 3, 2025. -- Responses to class certification motions are due by Jan. 21, 2026. -- Replies due by Feb. 18, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage.[CC] ST. CLAIR COUNTY: Mandatory Mediation Session in Miller Due June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller et al v. St. Clair County Emergency Management, Case No. 3:23-cv-02597 (S.D. Ill., Filed July 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Phil Gilbert entered an order granting motion for extension of time. -- Mandatory Mediation Session and Mandatory Mediation Process shall be completed by June 13, 2025. -- Additionally, the defendant shall have up to and including June 13, 2025, to respond to the motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] TRUROOTS LLC: $350,000 Wage Deal Gets Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval to the settlement in an employee class action involving TruRoots LLC. Plaintiff Jose Arellano brought this putative class action against The J.M. Smucker Company; Smucker Natural Foods, Inc.; Smucker Natural Foods, LLC; Smucker Foodservice, Inc.; Smucker Fruit Processing Co.; Smucker Retail Foods, Inc.; Smucker Sales and Distribution Co.; Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., LLC; Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., Inc.; and TruRoots, LLC, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit was originally filed April 27, 2023, in Butte County Superior Court. Plaintiff amended the complaint on May 15, 2023. On July 25, 2023, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., LLC and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., Inc. On July 27, 2023, defendants removed the action to the federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). On November 18, 2023, the parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss The J.M. Smucker Company and affiliated entities, leaving TruRoots, LLC as the only remaining defendant. TruRoots employed plaintiff as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at its Chico, California facility. Plaintiff alleges: -- Failure to pay minimum wages; -- Failure to pay overtime wages; -- Failure to provide meal breaks; -- Failure to provide rest breaks; -- Failure to pay wages due at separation; -- Failure to furnish accurate wage statements; -- Failure to produce employment records; and -- Unfair competition under California law The proposed class includes hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of TruRoots in California from October 31, 2018, through April 14, 2025. The class comprises 152 individuals. The proposed gross settlement is $350,000, allocated as follows: -- $5,000 for the named plaintiff as an incentive award; -- $116,666.67 in attorneys' fees; -- Up to $17,000 in litigation expenses; -- $7,000 in settlement administration costs; and -- $204,333.33 as the net settlement fund for class distribution. The parties have selected Phoenix Settlement Administrators to serve as the settlement administrator. Each class member will receive a pro rata share based on their number of workweeks during the class period. In evaluating settlement fairness, courts in the Ninth Circuit compare the proposed amount with the maximum potential recovery, according to Judge Shubb, citing Litty v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. CV 14-0425, 2015 WL 4698475, at 8-9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015). In light of the litigation risks and defendants' potential defenses, the court finds that the settlement is within the range of possible approval. The distribution method -- based on class members' workweeks -- is adequate and proportionate. In deciding the attorneys' fees motion, Judge Shubb says the court will have the opportunity to assess whether the requested fee award is reasonable by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours counsel reasonably expended. The judge points to In re Bluetooth Headset, 654 F.3d at 941-42. As part of this lodestar calculation, Judge Shubb explains the court may consider factors such as the "level of success" or "results obtained" by plaintiff's counsel. If the court, in ruling on the fees motion, finds that the amount of the settlement warrants a fee award at a rate lower than what plaintiff's counsel requests, then it will reduce the award accordingly. The court will therefore not evaluate the fee award at length here in considering whether the settlement is adequate. The court sets the final approval hearing for January 5, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. to assess the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement, and to rule on class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and the incentive award. The following briefing schedule applies: -- Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is due by December 8, 2025; -- Plaintiff's motion for final approval and incentive award is due by December 8, 2025; -- Defendant's CAFA notice declaration (28 U.S.C. section 1715) is due by December 22, 2025; and -- Reply briefs, if any, are due by December 22, 2025 Pending further court order, all proceedings in this matter, other than those contemplated by this order and the settlement agreement, are stayed. Judge Shubb separately approved a stipulation extending the deadline for submitting class data to the Settlement Administrator to May 14, 2025. The case is captioned, Jose Arellano, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01540-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.). UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Filing in Scroeder Due Sept. 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schroeder, et al., v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-cv-01806 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' joint motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines: -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due Sept. 22, 2025. -- The Defendant's Response to the Motion for Class Certification is due Oct. 22, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' Reply is due Nov. 21, 2025. -- Discovery is to be completed by Feb. 20, 2026, or 60 days after the Court's ruling on class certification, whichever is later. -- Expert disclosures are due April 6, 2026, or 45 days after the discovery deadline, whichever is later. -- Expert discovery is to be completed by June 5, 2026, or 60 days after the deadline for expert disclosures, whichever is later. -- Dispositive motions are due July 7, 2026 or 30 days after the deadline to complete expert discovery, whichever is later. The nature of suit states Discrimination Based on Sex or Blindness. The University of Oregon is a public research university in Eugene, Oregon.[CC] VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Seeks Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE LAVIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VIRGIN GALACTIC HOLDINGS, INC., MICHAEL A. COLGLAZIER, GEORGE WHITESIDES, DOUG AHRENS, and JON CAMPAGNA, Case No. 1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court to enter an order granting her leave to electronically file certain confidential documents under seal. Virgin Galactic is a British-American spaceflight company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TIuWFt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Natalie S. Pang, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 432-1495 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com esams@glancylaw.com npang@glancylaw.com - and - Jonathan Horne, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Brent LaPointe, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jhorne@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com blapointe@rosenlegal.com ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Faces Smile Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- SMILE LINE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZELIS HEALTHCARE, LLC; ZELIS CLAIMS INTEGRITY, LLC; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; ELEVANCE HEALTH INC.; AETNA, INC.; and THE CIGNA GROUP, Case No. 1:25-cv-11092 (D. Mass., April 23, 2025) contends a price-fixing conspiracy between Zelis and much of the commercial healthcare insurance industry, including the defendant Insurers to unlawfully suppress out-of-network payments to healthcare providers (Providers), including both medical and dental providers (the Zelis Conspiracy). Zelis and other insurer co-conspirators conspired to reduce payments OON services through an industry practice known as "repricing." Zelis agrees to provide its "repricing" services to private, commercial health insurers, managed care organizations, third-party administrators, preferred provider organization networks ("PPOs"), self-funded plans, and self-insured entities (Insurers") -- designed to systematically enable these Insurers to underpay on claims submitted for OON services. Zelis, the Insurers, and others share sensitive information and set reimbursement rates to enable Insurers to suppress the reimbursements to Providers for claims submitted for OON services. Most people in the United States have some form of healthcare insurance, typically a PPO or other healthcare plan that offers a network of providers that pays for medical services at different rates depending on whether they are in-network or OON. While patients typically select an in-network provider, the right to seek treatment from an OON Provider is important to allow patients to choose their preferred doctor, facilitate access to healthcare for people who live in areas where in-network options are limited, and offer important healthcare specialties that are not widely available. Because Zelis sets the reimbursement rates for OON services so low, often below operating costs, Providers must lose money or decline to provide care. The Defendants' anticompetitive conduct has forced many practices to stop offering services, merge with larger practices, or even consider closing down, thereby limiting access to health care, says the suit. At a basic level, a PPO is simply a large network of approved providers who have agreed to offer services within their network at discounted rates. When an insured patient receives OON care, per the terms of the patient's particular policy, the Insurer is obligated to pay for that care. Zelis' repricing has not reduced the cost of healthcare -- only increased the profits of Insurers and Zelis. Instead of reducing costs, Zelis' anticompetitive conduct limits access to quality healthcare generally and patients' right to choose their own doctor specifically while artificially inflating the profits of Zelis and the Insurers with whom it conspires, the suit alleges. ZELIS HEALTHCARE, LLC operates as a healthcare information technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. Patrick Coughlin, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 531-2606 E-mil: alawrence@scott-scott.com pcoughlin@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. Mary Jane Fait, Esq. Haley Hawn, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100sq E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com Ashlea@PaulLLP.com MaryJane@PaulLLP.com Haley@PaulLLP.com ZEROO GRAVITY: Settlement in Ochoa Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sara Ochoa v. Zeroo Gravity Games LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05896-GW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- Preliminary certifying the proposed class under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement, -- Granting the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement, -- Appointing Brown and Ochoa as Class Representatives, -- Appointing The Ryan Law Group as Class Counsel, and -- Approving the proposed long and short form notices and concomitant notice plan, and For purposes of settlement, the parties have agreed to certification of the following Class: "All individuals located within the United States who during the Class Period, made purchases in the Zeroo Gravity Mobile Games, who are not otherwise subject to the exclusions." Excluded from the Class are: (a) officers and directors of Zeroo Gravity and its corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or any entity in which Zeroo Gravity has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, successors, or assignees of any such excluded persons or entities; and (b) the Court; and (c) all individuals who have submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion to opt out of the Lawsuit, Settlement, and the Class. The Class Period is defined as Jan. 1, 2019, through the date of preliminary approval. ZGG operates mobile casino games, including "Cash Tornado Slots-Casino," "Jackpot Master Slots-Casino," and "Jackpot Friends Slots Casino." A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dq88Is at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***