250506.mbx

250506.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 6, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 90 Headlines 22ND CENTURY: Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16 3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Harmful Substances, Suit Says AIR CANADA: To Pay $10M in Damages in Ticket Pricing Suit ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: $511,000 Settlement to be Heard on June 17 AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Shipping Suit APPLE INC: Varbanovski Sues Over Mislabeled iPhone 16 Smartphone AVIS BUDGET: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit BACKBLAZE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims BEST BUY CO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Faces Priewe Suit Over Decline of Stock Price BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Predatory Schemes" BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report BUMBLE BEE: Hackett Sues Over Sale of Addictive Kratom Products BUMBLE BEE: Kratom Powder Products "Addictive," T.B. Suit Alleges CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Heck Says CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: LaMarre Sues Over Disclosure of Patient Info CALYX ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lerblance Due Sept. 12 CAMPBELL & COMPANY: Greene Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CANADA: Bouchard Class Action Settlement Gets Court Approval CANOPY GROWTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 CAPITAL TRUSTEES: Bonds Suit Seeks Class Certification CAREDX INC: Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Seeks to Certify Class CHOBANI LLC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemicals in Yogurt COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Filing in Vegbish Due Sept. 4, 2026 COMCAST CABLE: Scheirer Suit Removed to N.D. California CORPORATION OF MERCER: Court Awards Class Reps $1,500 Each CPS SOLUTIONS: Webber Sues Over Unauthorized Information Disclosure CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Dunn Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action DADA NEXUS: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit DIDI GLOBAL: Filing of Sur-Reply Due May 19 DONALD TRUMP: AARP Can File Amended Class Cert Bid DONALD TRUMP: Petitioners' Immediate Status Conference Bid Tossed DOW JONES: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Anderson Says DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Betting Transparency DSCC LLC: Rodriquez Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Deodorant ELEVATE OUTDOOR: Faces Murphy Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ELIO&SONS1 LLC: Paz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez Bid for Sanctions, Contempt of Court Tossed EQUINIX INC: Accrual Fund Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ESSEX COUNTY, MA: Suit Balks at Prisoners' Denied Medical Treatment FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Graham Due July 17 FCA US: Parties File Second Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order FERJE'S PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zumba Alleges FIFTH THIRD: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Klopfenstein Suit FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20 FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Infants' Activity Centers FIVERR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Fees FUEGO SMOKE: Seeks Dismissal of Dial Suit GARDEN CITY, NY: Blacknor Sues Over Unsecured School Grounds GEE'S HEATING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid GENWORTH LIFE: Parties Seek Extension to File Response GLOBAL BLUE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Shift4 Payments GOODRX INC: Northern Arizona Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: Pressman Inc. Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOOGLE LLC: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Junk Fees GULFSTREAM RISK: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas HANG10 LLC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARLEM WIZARDS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Bishop Alleges HERTZ GLOBAL: Crawford Sues Over Unprotected Private Data HOME EXPRESS: Robinson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HOSPITALITY CENTER: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Villabos Suit Says HOUSTON, TX: Faces Fortiori Suit Over Labor Law Violations HYUNDAI MOTOR: All Discovery Must be Completed by Oct. 14 ILLINOIS: Nali Seeks Declaratory & Injunctive Relief in N.D. Ill. INFOSYS LIMITED: Roongs Suit Removed to C.D. California ITX USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Claims JANENES INCORPORATED: Maurer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages JELLY BELLY CANDY: Tuibua Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JM SMUCKER: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Jan. 5, 2026 JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order in Wade Suit K AIR LLC: Faces Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. KELL & ASSOCIATES: Parks Sues Over Private Data Breach KENNY AMURO: Bid To Enjoin Class Arbitration Tossed KWS MANUFACTURING: Broadhurst Sues Over Data Security Failures LAMB WESTON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices LEO LANDSCAPE: Flores Seeks Conditional Status of Collective LOTTERY.COM INC: Has Until June 30 to File Bid to Junk "Million" MARKETSHARE INC: O'Brian Sues Over Labor Law Breaches MARS INCORPORATED: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Mann Says MARTIN RESOURCE: Davis Sues Over Worker Misclassification MASS GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Prelim. Approval of Settlement Deal MDL 3148: Panel Transfers 13 Antitrust Actions to D.R.I. MDL 3149: La Count v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Martinez-Turnbow v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. Cal. MDL 3149: Mayfeild v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Okoni v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Panel Consolidates 32 Data Breach Actions to S.D. Fla. MDL 3149: Pettinger v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California META PLATFORMS: Overcharges Facebook Advertisers, Iron Tribe Claims METEORA: Clarke and Vogt Sue Over Securities Law Breaches MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Stays Ramey Suit Pending Mediation MONSANTO COMPANY: Lee Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Michaels Suit Transferred to N.D. California MTC FINANCIAL: Yerkanyan Sues For Illegal Debt Collection Practices NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Self Alleges NEBRASKA BOOK: Seeks OK of Limited Objection Class Cert Bid NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Case Management Conference Set for May 27 NET POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17 NEW YUNG WAH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition NEWEST BIOTECH: Civil Standing Order Entered NEWREZ LLC: Cole FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. NORDIC WARE: Kaufmann Sues Over Bakeware's "Made in the USA" Labels OTAY LAKES: Class Cert Hearing in Renn Suit Continued to June 27 PACIFIC PREMIER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Columbia PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerra Due August 10, 2026 PATRICK LABAT: Hambrick Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot PENNEY OPCO: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid Set for May 16 PHARMAVITE LLC: Lang and Sevy Sue Over Deceptive Sale of Vitamins PILLPACK LLC: Court Approves $6.5MM Settlement Fund PIM BRANDS USA: Rogers Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky PINNACLE EMPLOYMENT: Bell Seeks Proper OT Wages for Case Aides PKL SERVICES INC: Balvaneda Suit Removed to S.D. California PONY AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faircloth Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Griffin Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Hisserich Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Zarate Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Flick Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Garcia Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gauron Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gifford Suit Transferred to S.D. California PREMERA BLUE: Plaintiffs' Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd PROGRESSIVE PREMIUM: Agrees to Settle Vehicle Claims Suit for $43M PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Torres READY CAPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations RENTOKIL INITIAL: Faces Securities Suit over Terminix Acquisition REVOLVE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Influencer Campaigns ROCKET COMPANIES: Plaintiff Allowed to File Renewed Class Cert Bid RTFKT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Claims on Crypto Assets RUST-OLEUM CORP: Settlement in Bush Suit Gets Initial OK SACRAMENTO, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hood Due August 18 SALVATION ARMY: Judge OKs Class Suit Over Addiction Medications SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Settlement Deal in FTX Class Suit Reached SHOPIFY INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Class Suit Says SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholders' Suit for $37.5M SOMCHAI AND COMPANY: Yang Must File Class Action Notice by May 15 SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Scheduling Conference in Creeps Set for June 20 SUTTER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $228.5MM TOSHIBA AMERICA: $435K Settlement Fund in Gregerson Gets Initial OK TOYOTA MOTORS: Illegally Collects Drivers' Info, Class Suit Says TREACE MEDICAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, McCluney Claims TRUE FABRICATIONS: Miller Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers TS INNOVATION: July 14 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Filing Modified to Jan. 23, 2026 UNITED STATES: A.M.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Black Federal Workers Appeal Denial of Class Cert. UNITED STATES: Hymas Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed UNITED STATES: International Students Sue for Revoking Legal Status UNITED STATES: Pasula Suit Seeks Class Certification UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid UNITED STATES: Smoke Suit Seeks to Certify Retired Army Class UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Hear Class Suit Over Disability Pay UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Installs Malicious Software, Suit Says UPPER BLUE SANITATION: Faces Homeowners' Suit Over Arbitrary Fees US CLAIMS: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info VAIL RESORTS: May Face $100-Mil. Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages VALLEY FINANCIAL: Mitchell Jr. Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees VANILLA CHIP: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Blind Customer's Lawsuit VESYNC CORP: Chen Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal VISION OF HOPE: Calvache Seeks Conditional Status of Action WELLS FARGO: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 24 WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle Mortgage Forbearances Suit for $185MM WHITE CAP: Lobdell Suit Seeks Class Certification ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 16 ZOOM VIDEO: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 1 ZYNEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Information ********* 22ND CENTURY: Class Settlement to be Heard on July 16 ----------------------------------------------------- 22nd Century Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: XXII), a tobacco products company that is leading the fight against nicotine and believes smokers should have a choice about their nicotine consumption, (the "Company") has released the following notice according to THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE 22ND CENTURY GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-JLS EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF 22ND CENTURY GROUP, INC. ("22ND CENTURY" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 4, 2025. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, CURRENT 22ND CENTURY STOCKHOLDERS WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION WITH PREJUDICE, AND FROM PURSUING RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this action is being settled on the terms set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 4, 2025, 2025 (the "Stipulation")1. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of: * the existence of the consolidated derivative action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (the "Court") captioned In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-JLS (the "Federal Action"); * the existence of a similar consolidated derivative action pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County (the "Nevada Court") captioned In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. A-20-808599-B (the "Nevada Action" and, together with the Federal Action, the "Derivative Actions"); * the proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants reached in the Derivative Actions (the "Settlement"), * the hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and dismissal of the Derivative Actions with prejudice, * Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for approval of the Fee and Expense Amount, and * Plaintiffs' Counsel's motion for approval of Service Awards to the Plaintiffs, to be paid from the Fee and Expense Amount. This Notice describes what steps you may take in relation to the Settlement. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court about the truth or merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed Settlement of the Derivative Actions and of your rights in connection with the proposed Settlement. Summary On March 4, 2025, 22nd Century, in its capacity as a nominal defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Derivative Actions, which Stipulation was filed in the Court. The Derivative Actions were prosecuted derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation and the settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of the Court, are intended by the Settling Parties to fully, finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Plaintiffs' Released Claims and Defendants' Released Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Derivative Actions with prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to adopt and maintain certain corporate governance reforms and procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation (the "Corporate Governance Reforms"). In recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon 22nd Century as a direct result of the Corporate Governance Reforms achieved through the prosecution and Settlement of the Derivative Actions, and subject to Court approval, the Settling Parties agreed that 22nd Century shall pay to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $768,333.00 (the "Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to Court approval. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service awards to be paid to each of the four Plaintiffs in an amount of up to $2,500 each (the "Service Awards"), to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount. This notice is a summary only and does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation. For full details of the matters discussed in this summary, please see the full Stipulation and its exhibits posted on the investor relations page of the Company's website, https://ir.xxiicentury.com/, contact Plaintiffs' Counsel at the addresses listed below, or inspect the full Stipulation filed with the Clerk of the Court. What are the Lawsuits About? The Derivative Actions are brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant 22nd Century and allege that, inter alia, beginning on or about February 18, 2016, at least, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary or other duties by: (1) causing the Company to engage in a paid stock promotion scheme (the "Stock Promotion Scheme"); and (2) issuing and/or causing the Company to issue false and misleading statements and omissions to the public that failed to disclose that: (a) the Company engaged in the Stock Promotion Scheme; (b) the Company's misconduct would subject it to heightened regulatory scrutiny, including from the SEC; and (c) the Company failed to maintain internal controls, resulting in an alleged investigation by the SEC. The Derivative Actions allege that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company experienced reputational and financial harm. Why is there a Settlement of the Federal Action? The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or the Plaintiffs. Instead, the parties to this action have agreed to the Settlement to avoid the distraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and because the Company has determined that the Corporate Governance Reforms that the Company has adopted and will adopt as part of the Settlement provide substantial benefits to 22nd Century and its stockholders. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions. Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged in the Derivative Actions. Nonetheless, Defendants have concluded that it is desirable for the Derivative Actions to be fully and finally settled in the matter and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The Settlement Hearing, and Your Right to Object to the Settlement On April 7, 2025, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein (the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the Settlement to be made to current 22nd Century stockholders ("Current 22nd Century Stockholders"). The Preliminary Approval Order further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on July 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable John L. Sinatra, Jr., at the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse, 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, New York 14202, to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered dismissing all claims in the Federal Action with prejudice, and releasing the Plaintiffs' Released Claims against the Defendants' Releasees and the Defendants' Released Claims against the Plaintiffs' Releasees; (iv) whether the Court should approve the Fee and Expense Amount; (v) whether the Court should approve the Service Awards, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Amount to the extent approved by the Court; and (vii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Upon final approval of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss their complaints with prejudice. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. The Court also has reserved the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by videoconference without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's calendar or the Investor Relations page of the Company's website, https://ir.xxiicentury.com/, for any change in date, time or format of the Settlement Hearing. Any Current 22nd Century Stockholder who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Amount or Service Awards, may file with the Court a written objection. Any Current 22nd Century Stockholder filing such an objection must, at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, file with the Clerk of the Court and serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon the below listed counsel a written objection to the Settlement setting forth (i) a written notice of objection with the case name and number (In re 22nd Century Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-JLS); (ii) the Person's name, legal address, and telephone number; (iii) notice of whether such Person intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing and the reasons such Person desires to appear and be heard, and whether such Person is represented by counsel and if so, contact information for counsel; (iv) competent evidence that such Person held shares of 22nd Century common stock as of the date of the Stipulation and continues to hold such stock as of the date the objection is made, including the date(s) such shares were acquired; (v) a statement of objections to any matters before the Court, the grounds therefor, as well as all documents or writings such Person desires the Court to consider; and (vi) the identities of any witnesses such Person plans on calling at the Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their expected testimony. Any objector who does not timely file and serve a notice of intention to appear in accordance with this paragraph shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement and shall not be permitted to appear at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause shown. IF YOU MAKE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, IT MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN JUNE 25, 2025. The Clerk's address is: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Western District of New York 2 Niagara Square Buffalo, NY 14202 YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN JUNE 25, , 2025. Counsel's addresses are: Counsel for Plaintiffs: THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net GAINEY McKenna & EGLESTON Thomas J. McKenna 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com ROBBINS LLP Brian J. Robbins Craig W. Smith Shane P. Saunders 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 619-525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsllp.com csmith@robbinsllp.com ssanders@robbinsllp.com Counsel for Defendants: FOLEY & LARDNER LLP John A. Tucker One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017 Office 904-633-8924 E-mail: jtucker@foley.com Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens, LLP Charles C. Ritter, Jr. 701 Seneca Street Suite 750 Buffalo, NY 14210 E-mail: critter@dhpglaw.com An objector may file an objection on his, her, or its own or through an attorney hired at his, her, or its own expense. If an objector hires an attorney to represent him, her, or it for the purposes of making such objection, the attorney must serve (either by hand delivery or by first class mail) a notice of appearance on the counsel listed above and file such notice with the Court no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing. Any 22nd Century stockholder who does not timely file and serve a written objection complying with the above terms shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any objection to the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be barred. Any objector who files and serves a timely, written objection in accordance with the instructions above, may appear at the Settlement Hearing either in person or through counsel retained at the objector's expense. Objectors need not attend the Settlement Hearing, however, in order to have their objections considered by the Court. If you are a Current 22nd Century Stockholder and do not take steps to appear in this action and object to the proposed Settlement, you will be bound by the Judgment of the Court and will forever be barred from raising an objection to the settlement in the Derivative Actions, and from pursuing any of the Released Claims. CURRENT 22ND CENTURY STOCKHOLDERS AS OF MARCH 4, 2025 WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION. Interim Stay and Injunction Pending the Court's determination as to final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, and any Current 22nd Century Stockholders, derivatively on behalf of 22nd Century, are barred and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, instigating, or in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any action asserting any of Plaintiffs' Released Claims derivatively against any of the Defendants' Releasees in any court or tribunal. Scope of the Notice This Notice is a summary description of the Derivative Actions, the complaints, the terms of the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing. For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Derivative Actions, reference is made to them in the Stipulation and its exhibits, copies of which may be reviewed and downloaded at the Investor Relations page of the Company's website, https://ir.xxiicentury.com/. * * * You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs' Counsel as follows: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net, (516) 922-5427. Please Do Not Call the Court or Defendants or Defendants' Counsel with Questions About the Settlement. 3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Harmful Substances, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a number of firefighter unions have joined together to bring a class action lawsuit against the makers of firefighting protective equipment, also known as turnout gear, which they indicate are laden with cancer-causing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS include a group of over 9,000 man-made substances that have been widely used for decades to resist grease, oil and water. However, there is now growing evidence that exposure to the chemicals may cause various cancers, liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and other injuries. While most of the attention on the chemicals in recent years has focused on their use in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which is used to fight fuel-based fires and has resulted in toxic exposures for firefighters and widespread water contamination in communities nationwide, PFAS are also found in firefighting turnout gear, which is the protective, layered clothing worn by firefighters to protect them from heat, flames and chemical exposure. An amended complaint was filed in Connecticut federal court on April 19, involving several state firefighter unions, the city of Stamford and individual firefighters, seeking class action status to pursue damages from a number of safety equipment and chemical companies, such as 3M Company, Dupont De Nemours, Inc, Corteva, Gore & Associates, Honeywell Safety Products and others named as defendants. The firefighter unions in the lawsuit are members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), which, along with the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, issued a warning in August 2022, calling on firefighters to reduce their PFAS exposure by limiting the use of turnout gear. The groups warned that firefighters will not be able to fully avoid the PFAS cancer risk until the chemicals are removed entirely from protective gear and AFFF foam, calling for the development and widespread availability of such PFAS-free gear. In the meantime, the group indicated that firefighters should limit their use of turnout gear to only emergency situations where it is required, and then suggested firefighters remove it as soon as possible. According to the lawsuit, turnout gear manufacturers gave firefighters equipment they knew, or should have known, carried toxic exposure risks, since studies have consistently detected high levels of PFAS chemicals in the protective equipment. "In all three layers of tested turnout gear, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) was present at alarmingly high levels -- for instance, in one set of gear that was tested the outer shell contained 182 parts per billion and the thermal liner contained 78 parts per billion," the lawsuit notes. "To put these numbers into perspective, the EPA has set the MCL for PFOA in drinking water at 4 parts per trillion. The amount of PFOA present in the turnout gear that was tested was 182,000 parts per trillion (182 parts per billion) in the outer shell and 78,000 parts per trillion (78 parts per billion) in the thermal liner." The complaint was originally filed approximately one year ago, but was amended in April to include several new plaintiffs. It accuses the manufacturers of designing and selling toxic equipment that led to firefighters' bodies absorbing the harmful chemicals, increasing their risks of cancer to the point that it is now the leading cause of death among firefighters. The complaint presents claims of design defect, negligence, failure to warn, negligent design and manufacture, medical monitoring, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages. PFAS and AFFF Exposure Lawsuits The class action lawsuit is part of a much larger body of litigation filed against chemical and safety equipment manufacturers over PFAS health risks, with most of the litigation either focused on water contamination caused by the use of PFAS in AFFF, which is used to fight petroleum fires on military bases and at airports. In addition, hundreds of firefighters have also filed individual AFFF lawsuits, alleging that they developed testicular cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, ulcerative colitis and other injuries following exposure to the foam itself, used in both drills and fighting live fires. Given common questions of fact and law presented in the claims brought throughout the federal court system, all AFFF lawsuits are currently centralized before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel in the District of South Carolina, for coordinated discovery and a series of early bellwether trials. While the outcome of early bellwether trials in the MDL will not have any binding impact on other claims, the average lawsuit payouts awarded by juries for different categories of injuries may affect the outcome of PFAS exposure and AFFF settlements. If no such settlements are reached during the bellwether trials, thousands of claims may be remanded back to federal courts nationwide for individual trial dates. [GN] AIR CANADA: To Pay $10M in Damages in Ticket Pricing Suit --------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal is ordering Air Canada to pay passengers more than $10 million in damages in a class action lawsuit that alleged they were charged higher amounts than the ticket price advertised. In a ruling Tuesday, April 22, Justice Judith Harvie wrote that Air Canada showed "ignorance and laxity" when the airline concluded it was exempt from a provision of the provincial Consumer Protection Act. The decision overturns a lower court decision that found Air Canada had breached the law but that no harm resulted, eliminating the need for punitive damages. The 15-year-old case was brought forward by a consumer advocacy group and a Montreal resident who said he was charged $124 more in taxes, fees and surcharges than the fare price listed during the first step of the ticket-buying process on Air Canada's website. In their initial claim, the plaintiffs argued that the airline undermined customers' ability to make informed choices and must reimburse sums that were charged above the advertised price. The appeal court ruling comes amid a debate about whether growing airline fees and fare classes amount to so-called junk fees or offer greater choice for travelers. Air Canada did not immediately reply to a request for comment. [GN] ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALDX) resulting from allegations that Aldeyra may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Aldeyra securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38697 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On April 3, 2025, Aldeyra issued a press release, in which it announced, "receipt of a Complete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the resubmission of the New Drug Application (NDA) of reproxalap, an investigational drug candidate, for the treatment of dry eye disease." The press release stated that "the NDA 'failed to demonstrate efficacy in adequate and well controlled studies in treating ocular symptoms associated with dry eyes' and that 'at least one additional adequate and well controlled study to demonstrate a positive effect on the treatment of ocular symptoms of dry eye' should be conducted." The press release further stated that "[t]he letter identified concerns with the data from the trial submitted to the NDA that may have affected interpretation of the results." On this news, Aldeyra's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or 73.31% to close at $1.42 per share on April 3, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: $511,000 Settlement to be Heard on June 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announced that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has approved the following announcement of a proposed settlement for Record and Beneficial Owners of Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. f/k/a Adara Acquisition Corp. Class A common stock: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MATTHEW MCKNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT HOLDING CORP. F/K/A ADARA ACQUISITION CORP., ADARA SPONSOR LLC, THOMAS FINKE, PAUL G. PORTER, BEATRIZ ACEVEDO-GREIFF, W. TOM DONALDSON III, DYLAN GLENN and FRANK QUINTERO, Defendants. C.A. No. 2023-0383-LWW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record and beneficial owners of Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. f/k/a Adara Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") Class A common stock ("Stock") that: (i) held redeemable Stock but chose not to redeem by December 8, 2022; and (ii) held unredeemed Stock at the time of the Merger. Excluded Persons (as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice) are not Class Members. (the "Class"). IF YOU DO NOT INTEND TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT OR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S FEE AND EXPENSE AWARD, YOU NEED NOT TAKE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance. Any undefined capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice or in the Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release dated January 17, 2025 ("Stipulation"), which is also available at www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiff Matthew McKnight ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of the Class; Defendants Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. f/k/a Adara Acquisition Corp., Thomas Finke, Beatriz Acevedo-Greiff, W. Tom Donaldson III, Dylan Glenn, Frank Quintero, Paul G. Porter, and Adara Sponsor LLC (collectively, "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, the "Parties," and each a "Party") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $511,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") as set forth in the Stipulation (the "Settlement"), a copy of which is available at www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 17, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as Class representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel should be finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Class Counsel out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. Stockholders Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, 866-274-4004, info@strategicclaims.net. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance. If you owned the Company's redeemable Stock but did not redeem by December 8, 2022, or held unredeemed Stock at the time of the Merger, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in the Company's Stock. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of: (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members, provided, however, that no cash payment for less than $1.00 will be made. As explained in further detail in the Notice, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than June 2, 2025, by each of the following: Register in Chancery Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware Leonard L. Williams Justice Center 500 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Plaintiff's Counsel Daniel Tyre-Karp THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defense Counsel Evan H. Lechtman Adam V. Orlacchio BLANK ROME LLP 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Alliance Entertainment Holding Corp. Stockholders Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Telephone: 866-274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net Website: www.strategicclaims.net/Alliance Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Daniel Tyre-Karp THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE Dated: April 2, 2025 AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Shipping Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards and Jon Styf of Top Class Actions report that two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com related to its two-day shipping promises. -- Plaintiffs Barbara Brittain and Linda Dial filed the request in federal court in Washington to end the action. -- The plaintiffs claimed Amazon markets Amazon Prime service for expedited delivery within two days, yet members don't actually receive those orders in that time frame. -- The plaintiffs filed a dismissal notice before Amazon filed either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Amazon Prime shipping class action lawsuit overview: -- Who: Two Amazon Prime members are suing Amazon. -- Why: The plaintiffs say the tech giant doesn't keep its promise to members of delivering products on the same day or within two days of ordering. -- Where: The Amazon Prime shipping class action was filed in a California federal court. Amazon misrepresents the benefits of its Amazon Prime paid membership, advertising one-or-two day delivery timeframes that it doesn't keep to, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiffs Barbara Brittain and Linda Dial filed the class action lawsuit against Amazon.com on Nov. 10 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, when Amazon users become Amazon Prime members, they do so with the understanding that one of the main benefits of membership is faster shipping. The plaintiffs say Amazon markets the benefits of the paid service as providing expedited delivery, with consumers promised to receive their products within two days. However, Amazon Prime members allegedly often don't receive their orders on time. "Consumers who purchase the Product, and subscribe to the Amazon Prime Membership, are often waiting substantially beyond the same day and more than two days for ordered items," the plaintiffs state. Amazon Prime membership costs should be reimbursed, lawsuit states The lawsuit says Amazon's "deceptive marketing tactics" play out in two ways. One is when a package simply doesn't arrive in time, even though it was advertised as being eligible for same-day or two-day shipping. The second is when Amazon switches the delivery date midway through the shipment, once the product is already on its way, the complaint states. The plaintiffs seek to represent California residents who bought items through their Amazon Prime memberships. They are suing under California consumer laws, and for negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek certification of the class action, restitution of membership fees, fees, costs and a jury trial. "Based on the fact that defendant Amazon's advertising misled plaintiffs and all others like them, plaintiffs bring this class against defendant Amazon to seek reimbursement of the premium them and the class members paid due to defendant Amazon's false and deceptive representations about the (Amazon Prime membership)," the plaintiffs say. Meanwhile, Amazon.com has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it intentionally makes it hard to cancel Amazon Prime memberships. The plaintiffs are represented by Shalini Dogra of Dogra Law Group PC. The Amazon Prime class action lawsuit is Brittain, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01764, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] APPLE INC: Varbanovski Sues Over Mislabeled iPhone 16 Smartphone ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN VARBANOVSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03517-NC (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant falsely and fraudulently advertised its iPhone 16. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Apple has not taken any meaningful steps to rectify the variety of harm its conduct has caused to consumers. Among other things, Apple has not provided buyers with the product they believed they were purchasing, an iPhone 16 with Apple Intelligence, including Conversational Siri, offered a meaningful refund, or compensated buyers for the subpar product they have been saddled with, says the suit. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. Apple Inc.'s customers are primarily in consumer, small & mid-sized business, education, enterprise and government markets worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com AVIS BUDGET: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Avis Budget class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Avis Budget Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAR) securities between February 16, 2024 and February 10, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Merriam v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 25-cv-03332 (D.N.J.), the Avis Budget class action lawsuit charges Avis Budget and certain of Avis Budget's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Avis Budget class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-avis-budget-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-car.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Avis Budget provides car and truck rentals, car sharing, and ancillary products and services to businesses and consumers. The Avis Budget class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Avis Budget crafted and implemented a plan to significantly accelerate its fleet rotation in the fourth quarter of 2024; (ii) the foregoing acceleration shortened the useful life of the majority of Avis Budget's vehicles in the Americas segment, thereby reducing their recoverable value; (iii) as a result, Avis Budget would be forced to recognize billions of dollars in impairment charges and incur substantial losses; (iv) all the above was likely to, and did, have a significant negative impact on Avis Budget's financial results; and (v) accordingly, Avis Budget's financial and/or business prospects were overstated. The Avis Budget class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 11, 2025, Avis Budget reported financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, disclosing a loss of $1.96 billion, or $55.66 per share, for the quarter, compared to a profit of $259 million, or $7.10 per share, for the same period in the prior year. According to the complaint, Avis Budget attributed these results to "a change in strategy to significantly accelerate fleet rotations, which resulted in shortening the useful life of the majority of our vehicles in the Americas segment," causing "a one-time non-cash impairment of $2.3 billion and other non-cash related charges of $180 million." The Avis Budget class action lawsuit further alleges that Avis Budget additionally revealed that Chief Executive Officer, defendant Joseph A. Ferraro, "will transition from CEO to Board Advisor, effective June 30, 2025" and that "Brian Choi, the Company's Chief Transformation Officer, will take over as CEO, effective July 1, 2025." On this news, the price of Avis Budget stock fell nearly 7%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Avis Budget securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Avis Budget class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Avis Budget class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Avis Budget class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Avis Budget class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] BACKBLAZE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Backblaze, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLZE) resulting from allegations that Backblaze may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Backblaze securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38633 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On April 24, 2024, during market hours, Investing.com issued an article entitled, "Backblaze stock plunges amid Morpheus Research report." This article stated that Backblaze "saw its shares plummet" as a result of a "scathing short report from Morpheus Research. The report detailed a series of alleged financial missteps and questionable practices since the company's initial public offering (IPO) in November 2021." The article further noted that Morpheus's report "highlights questionable accounting practices, including financial manipulations and inflated forecasts to pass audit thresholds." On this news, Backblaze stock fell sharply in intraday trading on April 24, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BEST BUY CO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Porchia, v. Best Buy Co, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00134-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: 1. Trial Date: Oct. 18, 2027 2. Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 16, 2027 3. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 23, 2026 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 28, 2026 5. Motion For Class Certification: Motion By: Feb. 27, 2026 Opposition By: March 27, 2026 Reply By: April 10, 2026 Hearing On: May 5, 2026 Best Buy retails consumer electronics, home office products, entertainment software, appliances, and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Da7a03 at no extra charge.[CC] BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Faces Priewe Suit Over Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN PRIEWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS, INC., LOUIS R. BROTHERS, AMANDA LONG, KEVIN MCALEENAN, JOSHUA KINLEY, and JULIE A. PEFFER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00623 (E.D. Va., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding BigBear's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade BigBear securities at artificially inflated prices between March 31, 2022, and March 25, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) BigBear maintained deficient accounting review policies related to the reporting and disclosure of certain non-routine, unusual, or complex transactions; (ii) as a result, the company incorrectly determined that the conversion option within the 2026 Convertible Notes qualified for the derivative scope exception under the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 815-40 and failed to bifurcate the conversion option as required by ASC 815-15; (iii) accordingly, BigBear had improperly accounted for the 2026 Convertible Notes; (iv) the foregoing error caused BigBear to misstate various items in several of the company's previously issued financial statements; (v) as a result, these financial statements were inaccurate and would likely need to be restated; (vi) BigBear would require extra time and expense to correct the inaccurate financial statements, thereby increasing the risk that the company would be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and (vii) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, BigBear's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 14.9 percent, to close at $2.97 per share on March 18, 2025. BigBear's stock price continuously dropped $0.32 per share, or 9.11 percent, to close at $3.19 per share on March 26, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. is an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technology solutions company, with principal executive offices located in McLean, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com BLAZESOFT LTD: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Predatory Schemes" ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Alper, writing for Casino Beats, reports that the online casino operator Blazesoft has been hit with a class action lawsuit filed by a New York resident. Autumn Boatner's legal team filed the suit. Her case alleges violations by Blazesoft and its Zula Casino, Sportzino, and Fortune Coins casino offerings. NY Resident Says She Lost Real Money on Blazesoft Games Boatner's documents, filed with a branch of the District Court of New York, claim she lost money playing Blazesoft online casino games because of their illegal sweepstakes features. The suit calls Blazesoft's games "predatory schemes." It alleges that the firm falsely marked its offerings as free-to-play sweepstakes casinos. Instead, Boatner's team stated, the platforms "operate as unregulated gambling traps where users wager and lose real money playing virtual slot machines and other casino-style games of chance." Boatner said she had lost over $50 on the games. The document notes that she wants to reclaim her losses under the terms of the New York General Obligation Law, which dates back to April 1963 and has been amended as recently as 2023. Boatner's legal document defines a class that includes all New York residents who lost money on the Blazesoft brands within three months of the filing. On X, the lawyer Daniel Wallach noted that the suit calls the games' currencies a thin veil concealing a real-money gambling scheme. [GN] BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY MITCHELL, et al., v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02123-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Case Status and Scheduling Order: The Court grants the Joint motion and vacates the operative case schedule. The parties are ordered to file joint status reports every 60 days until the notice period closes, with the first status report due on or before June 16, 2025. The parties are further ordered to file a joint status report proposing new case deadlines within 14 days of the end of the notice period. At that time, the Court will determine whether a status conference is necessary. The Court cautions the parties, however, that it intends to set quick deadlines to move the case forward once the notice period ends. Finally, the Court sets a briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant's response is due on or before June 6, 2025, with the Plaintiffs' reply due 21 days thereafter. Bob Evans is a chain of family style restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aa00kn at no extra charge.[CC] BUMBLE BEE: Hackett Sues Over Sale of Addictive Kratom Products --------------------------------------------------------------- DESHAUN HACKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINDA KLINE, ANDREW GRAHAM, and BUMBLE BEE BOTANICALS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03297-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of kratom powder, capsule, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) products. According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to disclose that the active ingredients in kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its analogs, has similar effects as such, and critically, has the same risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiff experienced addiction issues, says the suit. Bumble Bee Botanicals is a manufacturer of kratom powder products, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com BUMBLE BEE: Kratom Powder Products "Addictive," T.B. Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- T.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUMBLE BEE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03238 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its kratom powder and capsule products. According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to disclose that the active ingredients in kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its analogs, has similar effects as such, and critically, has the same risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal symptoms. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiff experienced addiction issues, says the suit. Bumble Bee Company is a manufacturer of kratom powder and capsule products, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Heck Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ETHAN HECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03300 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, common law invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment/injunctive relief, violations of Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing the private and confidential information of its patients to third parties, including Google LLC, without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said information. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: LaMarre Sues Over Disclosure of Patient Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE LAMARRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03301 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of California Customer Records Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Penal Code, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing the private and confidential information of its patients to third parties, including Google LLC, without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said information. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law dpulgram@sjk.law CALYX ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lerblance Due Sept. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD C. LERBLANCE, and CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CALYX ENERGY III, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00047-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Jackson entered a fourth amended scheduling order as follows: Event Amended Deadlines Plaintiffs' expert disclosures for class June 13, 2025 certification required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including Plaintiffs' expert reports due: Defendant's expert disclosures for Aug. 8, 2025 class certification required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), including Defendant's expert reports due: Expert depositions to be completed by: Sept. 5, 2025 Plaintiffs' deadline to file class Sept. 12, 2025 certification motion and briefing Defendant's deadline to file response Nov. 14, 2025 to Plaintiffs' class certification motion: Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply brief Dec. 12, 2025 in support of motion for class certification: Deadline for motions by either party Dec. 19, 2025 regarding whether a class certification hearing should be held and, if so, the form of hearing: Calyx is an oil and gas producer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmgG42 at no extra charge.[CC] CAMPBELL & COMPANY: Greene Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GREENE, ZURIEL WILLIAMS, and AUBREY NELSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL & COMPANY SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05047 (E.D. Wash., April 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and similarly situated co-workers. While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per workweek in one or more workweeks without receiving all overtime compensation owed to them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Payment Act, the Wage Rebate Act, and the Washington Industrial Welfare Act. The Defendant also failed to include non-discretionary bonuses and commissions earned by Plaintiffs in their regular rates for the purposes of calculating overtime wages, says the suit. Headquartered in Pasco, WA, Cambell & Company Service Corporation provides HVAC, plumbing & electrical services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC 905 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 208 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 850-7011 Facsimile: (509) 703-7957 E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 Facsimile: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com CANADA: Bouchard Class Action Settlement Gets Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat reports that on April 15, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec approved the Bouchard class action settlement agreement. The settlement agreement applies to individuals who worked any number of days for the Government of Canada between February 2016 and March 2020 as a casual, student, term (less than 3 months), part-time worker working less than one-third of the normal schedule, or a Governor in Council appointee, and who experienced pay problems as a result of the Phoenix pay system. To be compensated under the settlement agreement, eligible individuals must file their claim no later than October 24, 2025. For information on how to submit a claim visit: Bouchard (Phoenix pay system) class action: Notice of approval of settlement agreement. Quick Facts On September 6, 2023, the government signed a settlement in the Bouchard class action. Compensation is based on eligibility per fiscal year, with a maximum of $350 for 2016–17 and $175 for each of the 2017–18, 2018–19, and 2019–20 fiscal years. Individuals who received or are eligible for compensation under any related Phoenix pay system agreements for a given fiscal year are not eligible for settlement compensation for that same year. Contacts Media Relations Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Telephone: 613-369-9400 Toll-free: 1-855-TBS-9-SCT (1-855-827-9728) Email: media@tbs-sct.gc.ca [GN] CANOPY GROWTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canopy Growth Corporation ("Canopy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CGC) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 25-cv-01877, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy securities between May 30, 2024 and February 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy securities during the Class Period, you have until June 3, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Canopy, together with its subsidiaries, produces, distributes, and sells cannabis and hemp-based products for recreational and medical purposes. The Company's products include, inter alia, pre-rolled joints (i.e., cannabis cigarettes) and its Storz & Bickel brand vaporizer devices. In November 2024, Canopy announced that it had launched "award-winning California grown Claybourne brand" pre-rolled joints in Canada through an exclusive licensing agreement with Claybourne Co. ("Claybourne"). As Canopy has consistently acknowledged in its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, "[t]he cannabis industry is a margin-based business in which gross profits depend on the excess of sales prices over costs." Accordingly, Canopy's efforts to achieve and maintain healthy margins and costs feature prominently in Defendants' narratives about the Company's path to profitability, which is of particular importance to investors and analysts. Indeed, at all relevant times, Defendants stressed Canopy's implementation of various cost reduction measures to drive improved gross margins and profitability, including, inter alia, measures to reduce pre-rolled joint production costs and overall product distribution costs. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants also repeatedly touted the positive impact that these measures were purportedly having, and would purportedly continue to have, on the Company's profitability and gross margins in its fiscal year ("FY") 2025. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Canopy's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canopy had incurred significant costs producing Claybourne pre-rolled joints in connection with the Claybourne product launch in Canada; (ii) the foregoing costs, in addition to certain indirect costs that Canopy incurred in connection with its Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices, were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's gross margins and overall financial results; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had overstated the efficacy of Canopy's cost reduction measures and the health of its gross margins while downplaying issues with the same; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 7, 2025, during pre-market hours, Canopy issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of its FY 2025. Among other items, Canopy reported that its "[g]ross margin decreased by 400 basis points to 32% in [Q3 2025] compared to [the same quarter the year prior] primarily due to the incremental costs related to the Claybourne infused pre-roll launch in Canada, and an increase in indirect costs of Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices[.]" These factors contributed to Canopy reporting a wider-than-anticipated Q3 2025 loss of C$1.11 per share compared to the C$0.48 per share loss estimated by analysts. The same day, Canopy held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its Q3 2025 financial results. During the call, Canopy's Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Judy Hong ("Hong"), revealed that the Company's Claybourne product launch costs were "primarily attributable to [the] higher initial cost to produce Claybourne" products. Defendant Hong also disclosed that the "indirect costs" related to Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices were attributable to, inter alia, shipping costs. On this news, Canopy's common share price fell $0.76 per share, or 27.34%, to close at $2.02 per share on February 7, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Tel: (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 E-mail: dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] CAPITAL TRUSTEES: Bonds Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD N. BONDS, on behalf of the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. MARIANNA F. HEETER, as the Administrator of the Estate of Richard A. Heeter, CAPITAL TRUSTEES, LLC, PETER F. SHIELDS, PAUL J. LANZON II, PETER F. SHIELDS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST DATED AUGUST 12, 1983, AS AMENDED, and PAUL J. LANZON II DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED MARCH 31, 1999, Case No. 2:23-cv-12045-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel; and (3) appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative. The proposed Class is: "All vested participants in the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the beneficiaries of such participants as of the date of the Nov. 24, 2020 ESOP Transaction or any time thereafter." Excluded from the Class are the shareholders who sold their SAC Ventures, Inc. stock to the Plan, directly or indirectly, and their immediate families; the directors and officers of SAC, Flat Rock Metal, Inc., Bar Processing Corporation, Steel Dimensions, Inc., and Custom Coating Technologies, Inc., and their immediate families; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiff alleges Mr. Heeter and his company Capital Trustees, LLC caused the Plan to engage in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and breached its fiduciary obligations to the Plan. The Plaintiff is a participant in the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X6c0aK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Patrick Muench, Esq. Laura Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com lbabiak@baileyglasser.com - and - Perrin Rynders, Esq. Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. Justin M. Wolber, Esq. VARNUM LLP 333 Bridge Street NW Suite 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com amphelps@varnumlaw.com jmwolber@varnumlaw.com CAREDX INC: Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #295 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CAREDX, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 17, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Trina L. Thompson, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an Order: (1) certifying a class action; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all other persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CareDx common stock between May 1, 2020, and Nov. 3, 2022, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). CareDx is a medical testing company that provides blood tests designed to detect organ transplant rejection. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CH2gj5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Jason C. Davis, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Heather G. Geiger, Esq. Nicole Q. Gilliland, Esq. Evelyn Sanchez Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com jdavis@rgrdlaw.com spenceb@rgrdlaw.com hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com ngilliland@rgrdlaw.com egonzalez@rgrdlaw.com – and – David R. Kaplan, Esq. Steven B. Singer, Esq. Rachel A. Avan, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com ssinger@saxenawhite.com ravan@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com CHOBANI LLC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemicals in Yogurt --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed after toxic chemicals were allegedly found in Chobani nonfat plain Greek yogurt and Chobani whole milk plain Greek yogurt. The 26-page lawsuit claims Chobani has misled consumers by advertising that the yogurts contain "only natural ingredients" when, in reality, testing by PlasticList, an independent research organization, detected the presence of man-made plastic chemicals in the products. More specifically, PlasticList's test results showed that the Chobani yogurts contained four types of phthalates, a class of chemicals used in plastics to make them more flexible and durable, the case alleges. According to the complaint, phthalates are endocrine disruptors—meaning they interfere with the body's hormones. They are also associated with cancer, respiratory problems, neurological effects and other adverse health issues, the suit adds. Per the case, the phthalates detected in Chobani yogurt by PlasticList likely originated from the products' plastic containers and leached into the yogurt over time. "Physicians, researchers, and public health experts have called for the elimination of phthalates from consumer products, including food packaging and materials that come in contact with food, due to their adverse effects on neurological development," the Chobani lawsuit says. The plaintiff, a California resident who bought Chobani nonfat plain Greek yogurt in 2023, claims she had no reason to believe the product contained, or risked containing, synthetic chemicals, especially considering that its label explicitly states it is made with only natural ingredients. The woman says she would not have purchased the yogurt had Chobani disclosed that the product had unsafe, unnatural phthalates. "[Chobani], as the manufacturer, is likely aware of the type of plastic used to create the container and is likely in possession of, or capable of obtaining, purity reports and testing from its plastic manufacturers," the suit contends. "[Chobani] either did so, or negligently or willingly failed to do so." The false advertising lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased Chobani nonfat plain Greek yogurt, Chobani whole milk plain Greek yogurt and all substantially similar products during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Filing in Vegbish Due Sept. 4, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Verbish, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00426-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: 1. Trial Date: Oct. 4, 2027 2. Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 2, 2027 3. Class Certification Motion Hearing: Nov. 17, 2026 4. Class Certification Reply Due: Oct. 16, 2026 5. Class Certification Opposition Due: Sept. 25, 2026 6. Class Certification Motion Due: Sept. 4, 2026 7. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 7, 2026 Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MTNNSZ at no extra charge.[CC] COMCAST CABLE: Scheirer Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Margaret Scheirer, individually, and all other California citizens similarly situated v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, COMCAST CORPORATION, CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., and CLOUD SOFTWARE GROUP, INC, Case No. 25cv116313 was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03609. The Plaintiff alleges that her personally identifiable information was compromised during that breach and asserts various causes of action, including, among others, violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act (the "Cable Act"). The Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class and subclass of current and former Comcast customers residing in California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ashley L. Shively, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.743.6900 Fax: 415.743.6910 Email: ashley.shively@hklaw.com CORPORATION OF MERCER: Court Awards Class Reps $1,500 Each ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PING WANG, EMILY LEHNES, EMILY RAMOS, JENNIFER KILKUS, and JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00193-TES (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. -- For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the following Settlement Class: "All persons who were notified that their information may have been impacted in the Data Incident excluding: (i) Mercer and its respective officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge and/or magistrate assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contender to any such charge." -- The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Plaintiffs Ping Wang, Emily Lehnes, Emily Ramos, Jennifer Kilkus, and John Doe as the Class Representatives. -- The Court grants final approval to the appointment of William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC as Class Counsel. -- The Court awards Class Counsel $300,000.00 as an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement, and the Court finds this amount of fees, costs, and expenses to be fair and reasonable. -- The Court awards the Class Representatives a service award in the amount of $1,500.00 for each Class Representative. Mercer University is a private research university in Macon, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zc79b1 at no extra charge.[CC] CPS SOLUTIONS: Webber Sues Over Unauthorized Information Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE WEBBER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00431-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 18, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of its clients' patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems between December 2 to December 4, 2025, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. Beginning on or around April 9, 2025, the Defendant began notifying patients of the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant failed to disclose in a timely and accurate manner when and how the data breach occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment, Headquartered in Dublin, OH, CPS Solutions, LLC provides pharmacy technology solutions to pharmacies and healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Dunn Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alanna Dunn, et al. v. Cuyahoga County, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00364-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23, appointing the named Plaintiffs (Dunn, Day, Wilson, Leonard and Zeider) as Class Representatives, and appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of the following proposed Class: "From Feb. 23, 2021, through the present, all pretrial Cleveland and County Detainees who, when the basis for their pretrial detention ended (i.e. who had no other pending charges when they: were released with no formal charges, were ordered released, paid or were issued a bond, or were being detained solely on a minor misdemeanor or personal bond eligible charge),1 either: 1) had no Holds, and were not released from the Jail within 12 hours after the basis for their detention ended; or 2) had only a Booking Hold (i.e., a hold for completion of a booking step, such as DNA, photos, or fingerprints), and were not released from the Jail within 12 hours after the basis for their detention ended; or 3) had only a Monitoring Device Hold (i.e., a hold for installation of a GPS or SCRAM monitor) for a Cleveland Municipal Court Case, and were not released from the Jail within 12 hours after installation of their monitoring device.” On Sept. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, alleging that the Defendant's systemic and ongoing failure to timely release them and other similarly situated pretrial detainees from the Jail after the basis for their detention ended violated their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psLaq8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - Kate Schwartz, Esq. Caryn Lederer, Esq. Emily Brown, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD. 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 E-mail: kschwartz@hsplegal.com clederer@hsplegal.com ebrown@hsplegal.com - and - Janet Herold, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 40 Rector Street, Floor 9 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org - and - Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Esq. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (929) 266-3971 E-mail: dami@animashaun.me DADA NEXUS: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- On January 10, 2024, Dada Nexus Limited, its former president, and former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under the caption Yan Wang v. Dada Nexus Limited et al, No. 2:22-cv-00239. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's business operations and financials in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff purports to bring this class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's ADSs between May 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024, both dates inclusive. The parties subsequently settled the dispute in November 2024, and the Court approved the final settlement in March 2025, ending the securities class action, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. DIDI GLOBAL: Filing of Sur-Reply Due May 19 ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order modifying briefing schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' amended reply is due April 22, 2025. -- The Defendants' sur-reply is due May 19, 2025, -- The Plaintiffs' sur-sur-reply is due May 30, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AkLgUf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. Sam Cleveland, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 5th Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com samcleveland@quinnemanue.com - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3902 Facsimile: (212) 777-3902 E-mail: smusoff@skadden.com robert.fumerton@skadden.com michael.griffin@skadden.com DONALD TRUMP: AARP Can File Amended Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.A.R.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00059-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the petitioners' unopposed motion for leave to file an amended class petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and amended class-certification motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the amended petition and complaint as a separate docket entry, the amended motion for class certification as a separate docket entry, and the petitioners' memorandum of law in support of the motion for class certification as a separate docket entry. The Court denies as moot the petitioners' original motion for class certification. The Court's scheduling deadlines set forth in its scheduling order regarding class certification remain in effect as applied to the amended motion. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T2b3do at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Petitioners' Immediate Status Conference Bid Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.A.R.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00059-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order denying the petitioners' emergency motion for an immediate status conference. Further, and in light of the notice of appeal, the Court vacates its scheduling order regarding the motion for class certification, as reiterated in its subsequent order. The Court further orders that its previous order directing the parties to file responses to emergency motions within 24 hours no longer applies to the government as to the second motion for an emergency temporary restraining order. The Court was preparing to issue an order regarding the motion for an emergency status conference but was unable to do so in this 133-minute timeframe, as multiple members of the Court’s chambers are out of the office, and it is a day of religious importance to many. But regardless of the practicalities, the Court did not find a status conference to be necessary at this juncture. The Court is aware of the allegations, declarations, and evidence in the petitioners’ pleadings and motions before the Court and acknowledges the important and time-sensitive nature of this case. But again, the Court cannot shirk its responsibility to decide careful and complicated issues of law without at least some opportunity to review the pleadings and attachments and to get thoughtful responses from the parties. Petitioners A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. filed their habeas petition and first motion for an emergency, ex parte temporary restraining order on April 16, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AhCfsX at no extra charge.[CC] DOW JONES: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KLAY ANDERSON, MIKLOS BONA, DHRUV DESAI, LOVE SHAH, MARK SOROSIAK, and ROBERT WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03249 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knowingly collects and discloses its purchasers' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video watched on the website--to Facebook without proper consent. Headquartered in New York, NY, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation that develops, owns, and operates wsj.com, which is used throughout New York and the United States. The company publishes The Wall Street Journal, a digital and print newspaper providing articles and videos on business and financial news. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martha A. Geer, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BYRSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: mgeer@milberg.com - and - Mark Silvey, Esq. Robert R. Jimenez, Esq. Jordan Macejka, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7572 E-mail: msilvey@milberg.com rjimenez@milberg.com jmacejka@milberg.com ajaramillo@milberg.com DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over Betting Transparency ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Alper, writing for Casino Beats, reports that DraftKings, the sports betting operator, is facing more legal action in the US. A group of Pennsylvania-based plaintiffs is challenging the transparency of its "risk-free" betting promos. The Chicago-based legal firm Loevy & Loevy filed the case at the District Court of Pennsylvania's Eastern District on April 18. The firm wrote that it was filed on behalf of five plaintiffs. DraftKings Pennsylvania Lawsuit Comes After Baltimore Complaint The lawsuit seeks class action status. This means that not only the five plaintiffs but also any other individuals who share similar grievances could claim restitution and financial damages. The lawyers allege that DraftKings is earning "enormous amounts of revenue by misleading and addicting its users" with a business model that involves pushing the boundaries of the law. The suit follows a complaint filed in Baltimore City earlier April. The Baltimore lawsuit accused the operator of deceptive and abusive practices. The latest document contains several assertions regarding DraftKings' "risk-free betting" and deposit-match bonus promotions. The lawyers argue that DraftKings lures new users with large-print offers. These include "risk-free" and deposit-matching deals, including an offering named No Sweat. However, the lawyers say that the operator "contradicts the large-print offers by inserting difficult to read, legally opaque fine print terms hidden behind hyperlinks that are only available when a user is about to opt-in to the promotions and, thereafter, by enforcing complicated rules that DraftKings knows will be overlooked and misunderstood." The lawyers added that these allegedly false promises lure consumers into opening new DraftKings accounts and placing larger and more frequent bets. The legal team gave the example of a DraftKings app user interface for placing a "No Sweat" bet. They noted that the terms and conditions for the offering were not displayed clearly on the app. The lawyers wrote: "A user need not [. . . ] ever see the full terms before opting in to the promotion on the basis of DraftKings's advertising that led them to believe they could place a bet with no risk." The lawyers said the app developers instead included an "easy-to-miss" and "almost imperceptible" hyperlink icon. Bonus Credit Promos Under the Spotlight The attorneys also drew attention to DraftKings' bonus credit offerings. They purport that users found it hard to withdraw these credits. Users also allegedly found that credits had unexpected expiration dates and were subject to deductions. The attorneys claimed many users have complained about DraftKings to the marketplace trust watchdog Better Business Bureau. Some also made complaints to state gambling regulators. And the document goes on to assert that DraftKings intentionally targets vulnerable young men. It argues that the DraftKings platform is designed to maximize the likelihood that customers develop gambling habits. DraftKings has also recently been hit with lawsuits in Massachusetts and Illinois. Earlier this year, the firm posted 2024 revenues of $4.77 billion. [GN] DSCC LLC: Rodriquez Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ BETANCO and RAFAEL QUINTERO, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DSCC LLC, d/b/a David Stern Construction and CHARLIE ATTAR Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00118-AW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorize notice. The Plaintiffs file the motion for an order conditionally certifying a collective of, and permitting Court-supervised notice to, all similarly situated construction laborers classified as independent contractors (Laborers), who worked for the Defendants DSCC, LLC and Charlie Attar, at the Lakeshore Towers rehabilitation construction project located at 2306 SW 13th Street in Gainesville, Florida, during any part of the period from three years prior to the date the Court issues an Order on this Motion to the present (the "FLSA Collective"), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On July 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the FLSA on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated laborers. The Plaintiff Diego Armando Rodriguez Betanco worked for the Defendants as a construction laborer around August 2022 until March 2023. DSCC is a provider of comprehensive interior and exterior services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8e9rpG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Deodorant ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action lawsuit accuses the companies behind Billie All Day Deodorant of failing to warn consumers about the skin irritation risks associated with the product. The 33-page lawsuit was filed by two consumers who claim they and numerous others suffered severe skin issues such as chemical burns, skin peeling, rashes, itchiness or permanent skin discoloration after using the deodorant. The case alleges the reports of skin irritation directly contradict representations that the product is safe to apply to the skin for up to 24 hours and contains "soothing" and "ultra-gentle ingredients" designed for sensitive skin types. The class action suit -- which was filed against Edgewell Personal Care Company; Edgewell Personal Care, LLC and Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC -- contends that, in truth, Billie All Day Deodorant is "not suitable for any skin-type, let alone the sensitive skin of the consumers whom Edgewell and Billie's marketing specifically targets." According to the complaint, the product is sold in several scents on Billie's website and through retailers such as Walmart, Target, Amazon, CVS and Ulta. The plaintiffs -- residents of California and Louisiana, respectively -- claim that after using the deodorant's Lavender Milk variety, they developed "extremely painful" skin irritation on their underarms. The women say they could not lower their arms without experiencing serious pain, as contact with their sides caused their underarms to "flare up." Numerous consumer complaints on Reddit, TikTok, Walmart.com and Billie's social media platforms echo the plaintiffs' experiences, the filing shares. The Billie All Day Deodorant lawsuit alleges that symptoms can begin within minutes after applying the product and persist for weeks or even months. Although Edgewell is well aware of the apparent defect plaguing the deodorant, it has not provided any warnings or disclosures to consumers, who are instead "left to their own devices to sift through the internet to uncover similar complaints" about the product, the suit asserts. "Edgewell and Billie have long been aware of the Defect through pre-release testing and various consumer complaints, yet [they have] done nothing to remedy the Defect or disclose its existence to unsuspecting consumers," the case charges. The plaintiffs argue that they would not have bought and used the deodorant had they known it could cause painful and irritating skin issues. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased or used Billie All Day Deodorant. [GN] ELEVATE OUTDOOR: Faces Murphy Suit Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVATE OUTDOOR COLLECTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03266 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2025) arises from Defendant's 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Bellevue, WA, Elevate Outdoor Collective, LLC owns and operates the website, https://lineskis.com/, which offers ski gear and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ELIO&SONS1 LLC: Paz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL PAZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELIO&SONS1 LLC, MORGAN GROUP LLC, RYAN MORGAN, SCOTT MORGAN, PREMTIM GJONBALIC and DONIKA ISLAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03381 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wage rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt superintendent and laborer. The Defendants required Plaintiff to work several additional hours each workweek outside his regular scheduled hours of work during evenings and on weekends to perform these emergency services. However, throughout his employment, the Plaintiff did not receive any additional compensation for these hours worked. Among other things, the Defendants did not accurately track or record Plaintiff's actual hours worked or number of hours worked during each workweek or workday, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Elio&Sons1 LLC operates and manages numerous residential and other properties in and around New York City, among other locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez Bid for Sanctions, Contempt of Court Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to find Epic in contempt of court, to compel, and to impose sanctions. The court will contact the parties to arrange a monitored meet-and-confer session. The Plaintiffs bring this purported class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and related wage laws, alleging defendants Epic Landscape Productions, L.C., Epic Landscape Productions, Inc., John Constant, and Marty Siler (collectively, "Epic") willfully failed to pay them overtime compensation. Accordingly, the court orders the parties to meet and confer on these issues via Zoom. The court will be logged onto the Zoom meeting and, at minimum, will spot monitor the parties’ discussions and progress toward clarifying matters and developing a mutually agreeable solution. If necessary, the meet-and-confer will resume on additional dates. In order to set expectations in advance, the court wishes to make one thing clear: at the conclusion of the meet-and-confer process, it will expect the parties to jointly report the nature and the extent of any discrepancies and their proposed plan to rectify any such discrepancies. The most urgent concern, from the court’s perspective, is fashioning an appropriate remedy to protect the parties—meaning, the class members. Until these threshold issues are more fully explored, the court has zero appetite for the amped-up sideshows about contempt and sanctions. Epic provides professional design and installation for all your masonry & landscaping projects. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vh2iVI at no extra charge.[CC] EQUINIX INC: Accrual Fund Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFORMED SANITATIONMEN'S ASSOCIATION COMPENSATION ACCRUAL FUND (Accrual Fund), v. EQUINIX, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02656-VC (N.D. Cal.), Accrual Fund asks the Court to enter an order granting motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification, appointment of class representative and appointment of class counsel. The Class is defined as: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Equinix, Inc. between May 3, 2019 and March 24, 2024, inclusive, and who suffered damages by the Defendants' alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate families, the officers, directors, and affiliates of the Defendants, at all relevant times, and their immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Equinix specializes in internet connectivity and colocation centres, also referred to as carrier hotels. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rfPcyE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq. Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq. Hailey S. Zanutto, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com hzanutto@rgrdlaw.com - and - Vincent F. Pitta, Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway, 28th Floor New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 652-3890 E-mail: vpitta@pittalaw.com ESSEX COUNTY, MA: Suit Balks at Prisoners' Denied Medical Treatment ------------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN CARON and ADAM COCHRANE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEVIN COPPINGER, in his official capacity as Essex County Sheriff, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11075 (D. Mass., April 23, 2025) seeks to challenge the systematic refusal of the Essex County Sheriff's Department to provide necessary medical treatment to incarcerated people with Hepatitis C. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been denied direct-acting antiviral treatment as a result of Defendant's policies and practices. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendant Kevin Coppinger's policies and practices with regard to Hepatitis C violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to implement and adhere to a constitutional treatment protocol for Hepatitis C. Essex County Sheriff's Department is law enforcement agency in Massachusetts. It oversees the safety and security of Essex County residents. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Talamo, Esq. David Milton, Esq. Michael Horrell, Esq. Ada Lin, Esq. Rachel Talamo, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS 50 Federal Street, 4th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-2773 E-mail: dmilton@plsma.org mhorrell@plsma.org alin@plsma.org rtalamo@plsma.org FARMERS INSURANCE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Graham Due July 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GRAHAM, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-00053-BMM-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before: July 17, 2025 -- The Defendants' response regarding class certification shall be filed on or before: Aug. 15, 2025 -- The Plaintiff's reply regarding class certification shall be filed on or before: Aug. 29, 2025 Farmers Insurance provides insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bMCp4F at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Parties File Second Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as D'Angelo et al v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00982 (S.D. Cal., Filed May 30, 2023), the parties made a second joint oral motion to amend the scheduling order to continue the deadlines to complete fact discovery and to file a motion for class certification. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. FCA US LLC, now known as Stellantis North America, is the American subsidiary of the multinational automotive company Stellantis. Historically known as Chrysler, it is one of the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the United States.[CC] FERJE'S PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zumba Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- LORENA BEATRIZ MALLA ZUMBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERJE'S PIZZERIA CORP.; and JESUS GUZMAN LUGO; and ADRIANA PACHECO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02223 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer. Ferje's Pizzeria Corp. operates a pizza chain in 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 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 FIFTH THIRD: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Klopfenstein Suit ------------------------------------------------------- FIFTH THIRD BANK has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled William Klopfenstein, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-cv-00851, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on their participation in Defendant's Early Access cash advance program. The Early Access program, which was offered to Defendant's customers in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri and Florida, allows customers to get a cash advance on their next direct deposit. The Plaintiffs brought claims for (1) violations of the Truth in Lending Act; (2) violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act; (3) violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831(d); (4) breach of contract; (5) conversion; (6) unjust enrichment under Ohio law; (7) unjust enrichment under Illinois law; (8) unjust enrichment under Tennessee law; (9) unjust enrichment under Kentucky law; (10) unjust enrichment under Florida law; (11) unjust enrichment under Michigan law; (12) unjust enrichment under Indiana law; (13) fraud under Ohio law; (14) fraud under Tennessee law; (15) fraud under Florida law; (16) fraud under Indiana law; (17) violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act; and (18) violation of Kentucky's Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned William Klopfenstein, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 25-3258, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DONALD E. ADANICH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Stuart E. Scott, Esq. SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1700 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-3232 - and – Jason Kyle Whittemore, Esq. WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN & WHITTEMORE 601 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 910 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 225-4000 - and – Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Defendant-Appellant FIFTH THIRD BANK is represented by: Enu A. Mainigi, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers or acquirers of common stock of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (OTC: SVVC) between January 1, 2021 and November 14, 2023 (the "Class Period"), of the important May 20, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Firsthand Technology securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Firsthand Technology class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36230 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: according to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the managers and/or service providers of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") destroyed over $200 million in shareholder value; (2) defendants began inflating the value of the Fund's remaining investments to hide further losses by calculating multi-million-dollar valuations, using facially implausible valuation methodologies, for companies that they knew were or were in the process of failing; (3) these fraudulent valuations were integrated into the Fund's publicly stated net asset value ("NAV") and disclosed to investors; and (4) as a result, purchasers of the Fund's shares during the Class Period were damaged by significant inflation in the market price caused by the fraudulent NAVs. To join the Firsthand Technology class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36230 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FISHER-PRICE INC: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Infants' Activity Centers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Fisher-Price and Mattel face a proposed class action lawsuit after the detachable tissue box toys on Fisher-Price 3-in-1 SnugaPuppy Activity Centers were recalled due to a potential choking hazard. The 16-page Fisher-Price lawsuit alleges the activity centers are "dangerously unsafe" for infants because the tissue box toy can fall apart and expose small support brackets, putting young children at risk of choking and death. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) stated in its April 10 recall announcement that Fisher-Price has received at least one report of the toy attachment coming apart and an infant placing the small support bracket in their mouth. The recalled tissue box toys were included with roughly 15,300 Fisher-Price 3-in-1 SnugaPuppy Activity Centers, model number HLV78, sold for about $130 between November 2022 and February 2025, the CPSC notice says. The model number for each toy is located on the underside of the table, near the Fisher-Price logo, the case shares. "The tissue box toy is white with red decorations and has ‘tissues' made of a sensory cloth with a black and white wiggly striped pattern on one side, and a yellow/green with raised spots pattern on the other," the announcement describes. The complaint chides the toy giants for allegedly falsely advertising the activity centers as safe. Per the case, consumers were misled into purchasing a product they would have avoided had they known about the potential choking risks posed to children. April 2025 Fisher-Price recall According to the case, Fisher-Price and Mattel were aware of the tissue box toy choking hazard since at least November 2022 yet continued to sell the product through February of this year without providing any warning or disclosures to consumers. The filing argues that the defendants unjustly profited from the sale of the activity centers during the period leading up to their "delayed" April 10 recall. Meanwhile, consumers have suffered financial damages given that the safety risk posed by the Fisher-Price SnugaPuppy Activity Center has rendered the product "completely worthless" or, at the very least, significantly diminished in value, the suit contends. Indeed, the CPSC has urged consumers to immediately stop using the recalled tissue box toy, remove it from the activity center and keep it away from children. Per the complaint, consumers have been instructed to contact Fisher-Price for a free replacement. To receive the replacement, consumers must permanently mark the tissue box toy with an "X" according to Fisher-Price's instructions and submit a photo of the marked toy online, the case relays. Affected consumers can visit this page to begin the Fisher-Price toy recall process. Fisher-Price and Mattel are accused of unjust enrichment, negligence and violations of a New York law that prohibits businesses from engaging in "deceptive acts and practices." Who's covered by the Fisher-Price tissue box toy recall lawsuit? The Fisher-Price tissue box toy recall lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased or used a Fisher-Price 3-in-1 SnugaPuppy Activity Center that was distributed or sold by the defendants from November 2022 through April 10, 2025. How do I join the Fisher-Price class action lawsuit? There's nothing you need to do to join or add your name to the proposed class action suit at this time. It's usually only in the event of a class action settlement that consumers who are covered by the suit, called class members, have an opportunity to file a claim for their share of the deal. [GN] FIVERR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIA reports that a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed against Fiverr (NYSE: FVRR) claiming the talent platform charged illegal fees under California law. The named plaintiff in this case, Marcus Johnson, used Fiverr in August 2024 to hire a freelancer to design a book cover and a cartoon mascot, according to a court filing. The service was listed at $35 but a $4.93 service fee was added at checkout. It describes the service fees as an example of "drip pricing," where hidden charges are revealed late in the buying process. "Plaintiff alleges that, had he known of the fees, he 'would have purchased a different service on Fiverr or no services at all,' causing him economic damage," according to the lawsuit. The suit also included an example of an offer to create a logo for $40. It says Fiverr's website shows a $40 price listed no fewer than five times before a services fee of $5.20 is shown. Fiverr's attorney has been contacted for comment. The suit seeks to represent all California residents who purchased freelancing services on Fiverr's platform on or after July 1, 2024. The amount at issue substantially exceeds $5 million, according to a court filing. It was first filed in Alameda County Superior Court but was transferred to federal court earlier this month. [GN] FUEGO SMOKE: Seeks Dismissal of Dial Suit ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET P. CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE, LLC et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-WWB-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to dismiss Count IV in the class action complaint. The Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Complaint should also be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) because the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Finally, the "political question" doctrine bars the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief that would prohibit smoke shops nationwide from selling N-O products, the Defendants say. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff, Kathleen Dial, as personal representative of the Estate of Margaret P. Caldwell ("Plaintiff"), filed a Complaint against, among others, the Defendants in Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. On March 27, 2025, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of the instant action to the Court. The Defendants consist of the following two (2) sets of Defendants: the "Manufacturer Defendants" and the "Smoke Shop Defendants." Fuego Smoke is a retailer of tobacco products and accessories. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gOJ2XQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Michael Morgan, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. James D. Young, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jyoung@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Zachary T. Broome, Esq. BOWEN & SCHROTH, P.A. 600 Jennigs Avenue Eustis, FL 32726 E-mail: zbroome@bowneschroth.com hadrid@bowenschroth.com kdillinger@bowenschroth.com - and - Kenneth L. Minerley, Esquire Ashley D. Adras, Esquire MINERLEY FEIN, P.A. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420 Boca Raton, FL 33432 E-mail: ken@minerleyfein.com ashley@minerleyfein.com fileclerk@minerleyfein.com kelley@minerleyfein.com - and - Spencer Silverglate, Esq. Shawn Y. Libman, Esq. Adisbel Hernandez, Esq. CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 5301 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33126 E-mail: ssilverglate@cspalaw.com lyun@cspalaw.com slibman@cspalaw.com ahernandez@cspalaw.com kmartinez@cspalaw.com clandgraf@cspalaw.com GARDEN CITY, NY: Blacknor Sues Over Unsecured School Grounds ------------------------------------------------------------ LEOTA BLACKNOR and DEMOND PEARSON, individually and on behalf of D.P., a minor, Plaintiffs v. GARDEN CITY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT AL DISABILITIES INSTITUTE, DELL TRANSPORTATION, ROBERT PATE, in his individual and official capacity, HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, NORTHWELL HEALTH, and "JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10", Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02169 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2025) seeks monetary relief, declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and fees for violations of Plaintiffs' rights brought pursuant to Title II of The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other laws of the United States and the State of New York. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to ensure the minor Plaintiff left the school grounds properly secured, safely restrained and with proper monitoring, caused and failed to prevent the incident that occurred on September 7, 2022 which resulted in all Plaintiffs' severe and continuing pain and suffering. Garden City Union Free School District operates primary schools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. It is headquartered at 56 Cathedral Avenue in Garden City, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Albert D. Manuel III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON 556 Peninsula Blvd. Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 489-6959 GEE'S HEATING: Mott Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEE'S HEATING AND AIR, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00014-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for extension of time to file his motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff file his motion for class certification on a date to be determined by the Court and set forth in any case management order after the completion of the Initial Case Management Conference as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 or as otherwise determined by the Court after considering the parties' Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. The Plaintiff requests that his time to file his Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Civil Local Rule of Practice for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, be enlarged through and including August 15, 2025, or such other date as the Court deems appropriate. On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his Class Action Complaint with this Honorable Court. Pursuant to LR 23.1(B), as Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 16, 2025, his Motion for Class Certification was due by April 16, 2025. Gee's offers maintenance and installation services for residential, commercial, medical, industrial, and refrigeration systems. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1tuAmZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com GENWORTH LIFE: Parties Seek Extension to File Response ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON R. KAPLAN, RICHARD A. KAPLAN; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; AARP INC.; AARP SERVICES, INC.; AARP INSURANCE PLAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-01165-RBW (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) extend the time for the Defendants to respond to the putative class action Complaint by 21 days and set a subsequent briefing schedule; and (2) extend the time for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification under Local Rule 23.1(b). The Plaintiffs are reviewing the removal papers and, if appropriate, may seek to remand the case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2), Defendants’ response to the Complaint would be due 7 days after removal, on April 24, 2025. The Parties jointly propose the following briefing schedule: -- Deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint, including by filing a motion to dismiss: May 15, 2025. -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file opposition to any motion to dismiss: June 16, 2025. -- Deadline for Defendants to file a reply to the opposition to any motion to dismiss: July 10, 2025. Genworth provides life, health, and disability insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wezsMU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Llinas Negret, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 E-mail: cllinas@nflawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Drew W. Marrocco, Esq. Cassandra Beckman Widay, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1120 Telephone: (202) 496-7500 Facsimile: (202) 496-7756 E-mail: drew.marrocco@dentons.com cassandra.beckmanwiday@dentons.com GLOBAL BLUE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Shift4 Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Global Blue Group Holding AG (NYSE: GB), relating to the proposed merger with Shift4 Payments, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Shift4 intends to acquire Global Blue for $7.50 per common share in cash. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 6, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/global-blue-group-holding-ag-gb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Yotta Acquisition Corporation (NYSE: YOTA), relating to its proposed merger with DRIVEiT Financial Auto Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, DRIVEiT securityholders are expected to own approximately 78.4% of the combined company. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/yotta-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Southport Acquisition Corporation (OTC: PORT), relating to its proposed merger with Angel Studios, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Angel Studios shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive Southport shares. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southport-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Akoya Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKYA), relating to the proposed merger with Quanterix. Under the terms of the agreement, Akoya shareholders will receive 0.318 shares of Quanterix common stock for each share of Akoya common stock owned. Akoya shareholders will own approximately 30% of the combined company. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 13, 2025. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/akoya-biosciences-inc-akya/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3.What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] GOODRX INC: Northern Arizona Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Northern Arizona Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-08069 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-03004-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: Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq. Natalie Marie Pita, Esq. Robert A. Atkins, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Phone: (212) 373-3056 Email: jrubin@paulweiss.com npita@paulweiss.com ratkins@paulweiss.com GOODRX INC: Pressman Inc. Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pressman, Inc., and others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts Holding Company, Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00115 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03001-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: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (646) 933-1000 Fax: (646) 494-9648 - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com The Defendants are represented by: David J. Lender, Esq. Alexandra Rose, Esq. Jennifer Melien Brooks Crozier, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8153 Email: david.lender@weil.com alexandra.rose@weil.com jennifer.crozier@weil.com GOOGLE LLC: Parties Seek to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint omnibus motion to seal documents that contain information the Parties and/or non-parties contend is sealable under controlling authority. Although this Motion is filed jointly, the Parties' respective requests to seal are separately made. The Parties reserve all rights to challenge any designations by another party. The documents at issue were filed in connection with briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Parties move to seal portions of the documents identified in the Declaration of Angus Logan and the Declaration of Roger N. Heller. Google requests sealing of highly sensitive proprietary information about Google's business strategy, analysis, and revenue data regarding Google Apps and Google Workspace; systems and technical details relating to Google products, including Google Apps and Google Workspace; and Google employee contact information. The Plaintiffs do not seek to file any documents completely under seal, but request to file versions of documents that redact Plaintiff' personally identifying information, namely e-mail addresses and domain names. Google specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUXEL4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger N. Heller, Esq. Annie M. Wanless, Esq. Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com awanless@lchb.com dseltz@lchb.com - and - G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. E. Adam Webb, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 217-9950 E-mail: Franklin@WebbLLC.com Adam@WebbLLC.com The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Kristine Forderer, Esq. Christopher M. Andrews, Esq. Alexandra Cubaleski, Esq. Robert E. Earles, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com candrews@cooley.com acubaleski@cooley.com rearles@cooley.com GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Junk Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Edwards, writing for The Gazette, reports that four class-action lawsuits against Greystar Real Estate Partners, among the largest property management firms in Colorado and the nation's largest property rental company, have been combined into a single case, an advocacy group said. The four cases allege so-called junk fees imposed by Greystar are hidden and illegal, driving up rents across Colorado. The announcement, shared by Towards Justice -- a nonprofit law firm, focused on representing workers in litigation and other advocacy efforts -- said the consolidation is an important step towards "accountability for Greystar." It was not immediately clear where the plaintiffs are renting and both Towards Justice and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff and Murray, which represent them, were unable to provide comment before print time. "We are proud to stand up for renters in Colorado," said David Seligman, executive director of Towards Justice, also representing the tenants. "The path to justice in these cases is far too long, especially because of a legal system too often rigged against working people." In Colorado Springs, the company includes a breakdown of all fees that may be associated with renting at their properties for some downtown locations. Only one, located at 626 S. Wahsatch Ave., did not list these fees as the webpage did not feature floor plans online as the others did. Others throughout the region also include this breakdown. Earlier this year, Greystar found itself the target of a lawsuit by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and the Federal Trade Commission over junk fees. Weiser alleged the rental giant hid fees through "deceptive advertising." "(Greystar lures) consumers into applying for rental housing, and then fleecing those tenants out of millions of dollars by charging mandatory, fixed fees not included in the advertised price for an apartment," Weiser said. "Many of these fees are hidden and not listed in the rental advertisements either on third-party listing service websites such as Zillow or Apartments.com or on the Greystar property website." Occasionally, Greystar will list those fees online, but Weiser said this is often confusing and contradictory. Greystar categorically denied the allegations in a response to Weiser's lawsuit. "The idea that this is done with the goal of hiding fees from consumers is patently false," the rental giant said in a press release from January. "No resident at a Greystar-managed community pays a fee they have not seen and agreed to in their lease. . . . Greystar, the rest of the industry, and consumers all focus on base rent because it is the standard unit of comparison that people have used for decades to evaluate and compare apartments." Weiser and renters have united in their claim that these allegedly hidden junk fees are jacking rents up across the state. In Colorado Springs, the average rent in the last quarter of 2024 was about $1,430, far lower than Denver's $1,850 and Fort Collins' $1,702. Locally, Greystar has three new developments, totaling more than 800 units. On their website, the firm advertises 24 different communities in the city, though not all appear to have units available for rent. In 2021, the company began work on a third development in Colorado Springs that is now known as Dorian and appears to be nearing completion. Greystar did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story, nor did it respond before press time. [GN] GULFSTREAM RISK: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulfstream Risk Partners LLC. The case is styled as Derrance Harris, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Gulfstream Risk Partners LLC doing business as: Squeeze Insurance, Case No. 4:25-cv-00397-JM (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gulfstream Risk Partners LLC doing business as Squeeze -- https://squeeze.com/ -- is an insurance agency that offers auto, home, life, and motorcycle insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com HANG10 LLC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HANG10, LLC. The case is styled as Douglas Sandoval, individuals on behalf of himself all aggrieved employees v. HANG10, LLC, Case No. 25STCV11661 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." HANG10, LLC -- https://hangten.com/ -- offers all new collection of tees, boardshorts, shorts, shirts and tops for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com HARLEM WIZARDS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Bishop Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEM WIZARDS ENTERTAINMENT BASKETBALL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03047 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://harlemwizards.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Harlem Wizards Entertainment Basketball, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HERTZ GLOBAL: Crawford Sues Over Unprotected Private Data --------------------------------------------------------- MUNEERAH CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00323 (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2025) arises from Hertz's failure to adequately secure and protect personally identifiable information and protected health information entrusted to it by customers and employees, including names, driver's license numbers, contact details, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport information, and Medicare/Medicaid identifiers. The data breach occurred between October and December 2024 and stemmed from Hertz's use of a vulnerable third-party file transfer system provided by Cleo Communications US, LLC. The breach was reportedly exploited by the Clop ransomware group and exposed massive volumes of sensitive information. However, Hertz delayed public disclosure and failed to provide timely notice to affected individuals, thereby exacerbating the harm. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, California consumer statutes and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Hertz’s unlawful conduct. Headquartered in Estero, FL, Hertz operates the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty rental brands. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Rd, Ste. 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@Kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com HOME EXPRESS: Robinson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew William Robinson, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME EXPRESS DELIVERY SERVICE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV117576 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 3, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, the Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. Rafael Yedoyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com sarah@tomorrowlaw.com rfael@tomorrowlaw.com HOSPITALITY CENTER: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Villabos Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Villabos, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Hospitality Center of Florida. Inc, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-60789-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendant overtime compensation, retaliatory and liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Oscar Villabos as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately April 20, 2022, to December 10, 2024, or 138 weeks. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly during his employment with Defendant, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law, says the suit. The Hospitality Center is a staffing agency providing personnel to the hospitality industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HOUSTON, TX: Faces Fortiori Suit Over Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICCUS FORTIORI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, a government entity, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01793 (S.D. Tex., April 18, 2025) arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a salaried supervisor at Defendant's Solid Waste Management Department from on or about July 2020 through October 2022. He is currently employed with City of Houston, Texas, but no longer as a supervisor. The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically encompassed approximately 70 hours of work for Defendant on average. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each workweek, says the suit. The City of Houston, Texas operates as a government entity in Harris County, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: All Discovery Must be Completed by Oct. 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASHUNDRA M. KING, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00791-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered an scheduling order for discovery as follows: -- A pretrial conference is scheduled for May 11, 2026. -- Dispositive motions (e.g., motions for summary judgment) shall be filed no later than Nov. 12, 2025. -- No later than Oct. 14, 2025, counsel for all parties shall conduct a telephone settlement conference. -- Amendments to the pleadings must be filed with a motion for leave or by notice of consent pursuant to FED.R.CIV. P. 15, and shall be filed on or by: For the plaintiff, on or before Aug. 13, 2025. For the defendant, on or before Aug. 27, 2025. -- All discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 14, 2025. -- The parties shall disclose to each other the identity of ANY person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 701, 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and provide the reports of retained experts or witnesses whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows: From the plaintiff, on or before Aug. 15, 2025. From the defendant, on or before Sept. 15, 2025 Hyundai offers cars, sport utility vehicles, parts, and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAGZ85 at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: Nali Seeks Declaratory & Injunctive Relief in N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kristi Noem, et al. The case is captioned as VISHNU NALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03969 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2025). The Plaintiff brings complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey G. Brown, Esq. JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C. 65 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL Telephone: (312) 789-9700 Email: Jeff@JGBrownLaw.com INFOSYS LIMITED: Roongs Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Neil Roongs, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INFOSYS LIMITED, a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07683 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03698. The Complaint asserts six causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages Owed; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenditures; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Leo Q. Li, Esq. David J. Kim, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com lli@seyfarth.com dakim@seyfarth.com ITX USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ITX USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03267 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2025) alleges the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The case arises from Defendant's 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. Headquartered in New York, NY, ITX USA, LLC LLC operates the Stradivarius online retail store, as well as the Stradivarius interactive website, https://www.stradivarius.com/us/, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JANENES INCORPORATED: Maurer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jocelyn Maurer individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Janenes Incorporated DB/A Little Blue Wagon Janene Gunn Purdon-Menki, as individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-03100-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill., April 25, 2025), is brought pursuant to §216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (hereinafter "IMWL" ), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") and the Illinois Paid Leave Act ("IPLA") to recover unpaid wages for overtime pay which was not compensated at the proper rate of pay and a rate of pay to include all compensation. The Plaintiff and those employees that are similarly situated to the Individual Plaintiff) that she, under both federal and state wage laws, is entitled to be paid for all hours worked and to receive minimum wage for all hours worked and/or receive time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. This action is also brought as an Individual action under the IWPCA, in that Defendants took unauthorized/unconsented deductions from Plaintiff's wages and failed to pay all promised wages and benefits which were based on IWPCA agreements to pay those wages and benefits. Said unauthorized wage deductions are/were also violations of the FLSA and IMWL in that the deductions were without authority, an independent violation of the FLSA/IMWL, and reduced Plaintiff's wages below the minimum wage rate, a separate violation of the FLSA and IMWL. Further Defendants failures to pay owed wages are also violations of the timely payment requirements for the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an employee of the Defendants. Janenes Incorporated D/B/A Little Blue Wagon (Janenes) is a corporation or business which does business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Phone: 630-464-9675 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com JELLY BELLY CANDY: Tuibua Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jelly Belly Candy Company. The case is styled as Peniana Tuibua, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Case No. CU25-03758 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Jelly Belly Candy Company -- https://www.jellybelly.com/ -- is an American company that manufactures Jelly Belly jelly beans and other candy.[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 - and - Joshua Samson Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite No 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (818) 456-6168 Fax: (888) 505-0868 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com JM SMUCKER: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for Jan. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ARELLANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, LLC, a limited liability company; SMUCKER FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING CO., a corporation; SMUCKER RETAIL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a corporation; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC, a limited liability company; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING COMPANY, a corporation; TRUROOTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01540-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of the class action settlement. (1) The court certifies the following class for purposes of settlement only: "All persons employed by the defendant in California and classified as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for the defendant from Oct. 31, 2018, to April 14, 2025." (2) The court appoints Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, as class counsel. (3) The court appoints plaintiff Jose Arellano as class representative. (4) The final approval hearing will be held on Jan. 5, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. (5) Pending further order of this court, all proceedings in this matter except those contemplated herein and in the settlement agreement are stayed. On April 27, 2023, plaintiff filed suit in Butte County Superior Court. The Plaintiff amended the complaint on May 15, 2023. On July 25, 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., LLC, and Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co., Inc. The Plaintiff alleges violations of California wage and hour laws. The settlement agreement provides that plaintiff's counsel will seek a fee award not to exceed 33% of the common settlement fund. The parties estimate this award to consist of $116,666.67 in Attorneys' fees and $17,000.00 in litigation expenses. If the court does not approve the fee award in whole or in part, that will not prevent the settlement agreement from becoming effective or be grounds for termination. JM Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lf04cd at no extra charge.[CC] JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Amend Class Cert Order in Wade Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Wade, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JMJ Enterprises, LLC and Traci Johnson Martin, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter and/or amend its class certification order. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJVKzR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Angela Newell Gray, Esq. ANGELA GRAY LAW, P.A. 7 Corporate Center Court, Suite B Greensboro, NC 27408 Telephone: (336) 285-8151 Facsimile: (336) 458-9359 Email: angela@angelagraylaw.com K AIR LLC: Faces Flores Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FLORES, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. K AIR, LLC, and JOHN KESSANIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02886 (D.N.J., April 20, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative Code, as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Flores became employed by Defendants, full-time, as a non-exempt kitchen laborer, in or about February 2022, and worked for Defendants until in or about February 2025. The Plaintiff asserts that he performed services and labor for Defendants for which Defendants made no provision to pay him and other similarly situated employees compensation to which they were lawfully entitled for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. Headquartered in Wayne, NJ, K Air, LLC owns and operates the Outback Steakhouse restaurant in Ledgewood, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com KELL & ASSOCIATES: Parks Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ BRITTANY PARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01311 (D. Md., April 23, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. Moreover, the Defendant's data breach notification letter allegedly contains numerous deficiencies that exacerbate the circumstances for victims of the data breach: (1) Defendant waited four months to notice Plaintiff and Class members of the data breach; (2) Defendant fails to state whether it was able to contain or end the cybersecurity threat, leaving victims to fear whether the private information that Defendant continues to maintain is secure; and (3) Defendant fails to state how the breach itself occurred. Headquartered in Sparks, MD, Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. provides employee-benefit management services to its clients. [ BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (212) 946-9305 E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com KENNY AMURO: Bid To Enjoin Class Arbitration Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISLAND PALM COMMUNITIES LLC; and HICKAM COMMUNITIES LLC, v. KENNY AMURO and JOSHUA BRANTLEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00458-LEK-RT (D. Haw.), the Court entered an order denying the IPCL and HCL's emergency motion to enjoin class arbitration pending appeal and cross-appeal, filed on April 15, 2025. Because the Arbitrator has expressed the intent to consider Amuro's and Brantley's claims on an individual basis, and because this Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on issues relating to the other Arbitration Claimants, there is no basis for this Court to enjoin any portion of the Arbitration proceedings. On March 25, 2025, this Court issued an order that granted the Landlords' relief in part. On March 28, 2025, Amuro and Brantley filed a notice of appeal from the 3/25 Order. On April 15, 2025, the Landlords filed a notice initiating a cross-appeal from the 3/25 Order. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dvk5Ol at no extra charge.[CC] KWS MANUFACTURING: Broadhurst Sues Over Data Security Failures -------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN BROADHURST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KWS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01003-E (N.D. Tex., April 23, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach that occurred during the period of January 24-25, 2025. However, on or around April, 15, 2025, more than three months after the data breach occurred, the Defendant only began notifying Class Members about the data breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Burleson, TX, KWS Manufacturing Company manufactures conveyors and component parts for the bulk material handling industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.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 LAMB WESTON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Teske Fetrow, writing for Source One, reports that a class-action lawsuit against Lamb Weston, Inc., a prominent potato processing company headquartered in Eagle, Idaho, has been filed by Derrick Gilbert, representing himself and other similarly situated hourly-paid or non-exempt employees in Washington State. Gilbert's lawsuit, initially filed in Benton County Superior Court on January 21, 2025, alleges systematic wage and hour abuses by the company, including failure to provide adequate meal and rest breaks, insufficient minimum wage payments, unpaid overtime, illegal wage deductions, and failure to accrue and permit usage of paid sick leave. The lawsuit seeks damages of at least $14 million, including attorney fees. The complaint, detailed over numerous pages, explicitly accuses Lamb Weston of deliberate and willful noncompliance with Washington State employment laws, emphasizing that employees consistently faced working conditions detrimental to their health. Gilbert's legal action claims that the employees were routinely denied the legally mandated ten-minute rest breaks every four hours and the required thirty-minute meal breaks for every five hours worked. Moreover, the plaintiff asserts that the company failed to pay employees for all hours worked, including missed breaks, effectively lowering hourly compensation below the mandated minimum wage. Gilbert further contends that Lamb Weston neglected to compensate overtime correctly, particularly in scenarios where the missed breaks extended the workweek beyond forty hours. The lawsuit also highlights alleged unlawful deductions from wages and a systemic failure to accurately accrue and allow usage of paid sick leave. The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on April 4, 2025. Lamb Weston, represented by attorneys from Littler Mendelson, P.C., strongly denies all allegations. The company's defense emphasizes compliance with both state and federal wage laws, vigorously rejecting claims of unlawful practices or any entitlement to damages by the plaintiff or the proposed class members. Lamb Weston's formal response to the complaint systematically addresses and denies each allegation, asserting that the claims are unsuitable for class-action certification. They maintain that the plaintiff's allegations lack factual basis, and the company disputes any suggestion of widespread wage theft or mismanagement of employee breaks and sick leave. The defense's documentation underscores Lamb Weston's position that any purported wage issues were isolated or misconstrued rather than indicative of corporate policy. Central to Lamb Weston's defense is the claim that the allegations of failure to provide rest and meal breaks or accurate pay are unfounded. The company insists that it maintains comprehensive payroll records reflecting accurate work hours, pay rates, and deductions, adhering strictly to Washington's labor laws. The defense documentation further argues that any potential violations were neither intentional nor systematic. [GN] LEO LANDSCAPE: Flores Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL CASTORENA FLORES, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEO LANDSCAPE, LLC and JOSE ANTONIO CARBAJAL CASTILLO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01941-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certify this case to proceed as a "collective Action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) defining the collective as "All individuals who worked pursuant to H-2B guestworker visas acquired by Leo Landscape, LLC between Jan. 1, 2022 and the present." 2. Approving the Notice and Consent to Join form (attached as Exhibit 4); 3. Approving distribution of condensed text message notice stating: "Leo Landscape, LLC Lawsuit for Wages: Recordsshow that you worked for Leo Landscape with an H-2B visa. You may be eligible to join this lawsuit. Click below for more information." and authorize the collection of electronic signatures. 4. Directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent to Join form to all potential collective action members via first-class U.S. Mail, text message and email within 30 days after the Court's Order; 5. Directing the Defendants to produce the names, postal and email addresses, and telephone numbers of all potential class members within 14 days of the Court's order so that the Plaintiff may disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; 6. Giving the putative class members 60 days from the date Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which to opt-in to the action; and 7. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations applicable to each opt-in Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards act (FLSA) claims, as of the April 18, 2025, filing of this motion. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime premiums, when the H-2B guestworkers worked hours over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff and others are Mexican citizens that came to the United States on H-2B guestworker visas permitting them to work for Leo Landscape. Leo's Landscaping is a full-service landscape and maintenance company A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JJLVS4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 1490 Lafayette St. #304 Denver, CO. 80218 Telephone: (303) 305-8230. E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com LOTTERY.COM INC: Has Until June 30 to File Bid to Junk "Million" ---------------------------------------------------------------- On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed a Class Action Complaint against Lottery.com Inc. and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, U.S.C. Section 78u-4 et seq. On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company's legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company's deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint. On July 12, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed its reply on August 22, 2024 to plaintiffs response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. On February 25, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the MTD Third Amended Complaint. As set forth in the Order, the Class Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim shall proceed against Defendant Dickinson and the Company based on post−merger representations regarding Lottery's financial performance and financial reporting. Class Plaintiffs' and Hoffman's Section 20(a) claim premised on Section 10(b) shall likewise proceed against Defendant Dickinson. Class Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim shall proceed against the Company and Defendants DiMatteo, Clemenson and Dickinson with respect to certain legal and regulatory compliance statements in the Proxy. The remainder of Plaintiffs claims were dismissed, including all claims against Komissarov. The Court also ordered that Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend within twenty−one (21) days of this opinion and order. On March 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Hoffman's motion for leave for additional time to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Hoffman's' Third Amended Complaint was due April 24, 2025. The Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be due June 30, 2025; Plaintiff Hoffman's opposition brief will be due August 14, 2025; and Defendants' reply briefs shall be due September 17, 2025, 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. MARKETSHARE INC: O'Brian Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------- PATRICK O'BRIAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKETSHARE, INC.; and PATRICK GREEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01179-CKD (E.D. Cal., April 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Patrick O'Brian was employed by Defendant as a sign-waver from approximately March 9, 2024, through April 28, 2024. Throughout the course of Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other employees for expenses incurred while using their personal vehicles for their work-related travels, in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802. In addition, when Plaintiff complained about not being compensated for all hours worked, including travel time, Defendant retaliated against him by removing him from the work schedule, says the suit. Headquartered in San Jose, CA, Marketshare, Inc. provides marketing services related to real estate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com MARS INCORPORATED: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Mann Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER MANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARS, INCORPORATED D/B/A WISDOM PANEL, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful telemarketing text messages in order to promote its goods and services. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to her and similarly situated individuals. Mars, Incorporated, doing business as Wisdom Panel, is a stock corporation with its headquarters located in McLean, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com MARTIN RESOURCE: Davis Sues Over Worker Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND MARTIN TRANSPORT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex., April 19, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying their dispatchers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiff Davis was a dispatcher from February 2022 through March 2025. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, he was not paid any additional compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff. Martin Resource Management Corporation is engaged in transporting, marketing, managing logistics, and storing hydrocarbon products and their derivatives. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com MASS GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Prelim. Approval of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK NORTON, DASHKA LOUIS, CAROLINE MITCHELL, NANCY BARTLETT and AZILDA CORDAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-10045-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement entered into with the Defendants, approval of form and manner of settlement notice, and scheduling of a fairness hearing and granting the relief sought. Mass General Brigham offers patient care, rehabilitation, medical research and discovery. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qpA52N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4101 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Ste. 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 242-1802 Facsimile: (717) 233-4101 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com MDL 3148: Panel Transfers 13 Antitrust Actions to D.R.I. -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers eight actions from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, three from the District of Rhode Island and one each from the District of Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York, all to the District of Rhode Island and with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Mary S. McElroy for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: GoodRX and Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation (No. II)," MDL No. 3148. All responding parties support centralization, but they differ as to the transferee district. Plaintiffs are independent pharmacies, or non-profit associations of such pharmacies, which allege that GoodRx and the four pharmacy benefit manager defendants -- CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus (pharmacy benefit managers or PBM's)-- have engaged in anticompetitive conduct through GoodRx's "integrated savings program." According to plaintiffs, that program involves an agreement between the PBM defendants and GoodRx to use GoodRx's price-aggregating algorithm to suppress the amounts that PBMs pay for generic prescription medications dispensed by independent pharmacies. Plaintiffs in all actions seek to represent nationwide classes of independent pharmacies that have been reimbursed for generic prescription medications pursuant to the integrated savings program. All actions name GoodRx as a defendant; all but two name the four PBM defendants. All plaintiffs assert claims of illegal price fixing and restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The actions share overlapping complex issues of fact relating to how the integrated savings program operates, the agreements among GoodRx and the four PBM defendants, the program's impact on independent pharmacies, and the alleged damages. The panel concludes that centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery and avoid the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert issues. The actions may also present overlapping issues arising from the terms of several PBM's agreements with plaintiffs, which, according to defendants, require that all disputes be resolved through arbitration. The District of Rhode Island is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation, rules the panel. The district is a relatively underutilized transferee district that presently has no pending MDLs and CVS Caremark is headquartered there and relevant witnesses and documents may be located there. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3148-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf MDL 3149: La Count v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as La Count, et al., v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00209-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring La Count 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 La Count 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=Cu30Pc at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Martinez-Turnbow v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez-Turnbow v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00165-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Martinez-Turnbow 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 Martinez-Turnbow 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=lMRzA9 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Mayfeild v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayfeild v. PowerSchool Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00203-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Mayfeild 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 Mayfeild 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=1hImyW at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Okoni v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Okoni v. PowerSchool Group, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00231-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Okoni 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 Okoni 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=SG19ZQ at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Panel Consolidates 32 Data Breach Actions to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 29 actions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, two from the Western District of Missouri, and one from the Eastern District of New York, all to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: Powerschool Holdings, Inc., and Powerschool Group, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3149. The Plaintiff in "J.I. et al. v. Powerschool, C.A.," No. 4:25−04006 moved to centralize this litigation in the Western District of Missouri. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. and PowerSchool Group LLC and the responding plaintiffs in all but six cases support or do not oppose centralization. These actions share factual questions arising from a recent cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System software, which schools use to store current and former students' and staff members' personal information. 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. Some of the plaintiffs maintain that informal coordination is feasible. They argue that the 41 Eastern District of California cases will soon be consolidated before a single judge, effectively leaving only fourteen additional cases spread across eight other district courts. However, the panel is not persuaded that informal coordination is the most efficient route to resolving this litigation. None of the parties have moved under Section 1404 to transfer the actions to a common district. Moreover, the decisions cited by opponents of centralization are readily distinguishable. 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, adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 7, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3149-Transfer_Order-3-25_0.pdf MDL 3149: Pettinger v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pettinger, et al., v. PowerSchool Group LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00159-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Pettinger 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 Pettinger 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=DImbYn at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Overcharges Facebook Advertisers, Iron Tribe Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- IRON TRIBE FITNESS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03281 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of overcharging advertisers in Facebook, including the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the overcharges occurred because Facebook used a flawed "blended price" auction process to price and implement advertisements instead of the "second price" auction process it purported to use. Facebook advertisers were not informed of the overcharges, which have never been publicly disclosed. The hidden "blended price" auction made it impossible for advertisers to uncover the overcharges. The Defendant's wrongful conduct caused the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to overpay for Facebook advertisements and the Defendant derived the benefit of such overpayment, says the suit. Iron Tribe Fitness is a fitness company with its headquarters in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3481 Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: avi@blbglaw.com michael.blatchley@blbglaw.com - and - Robert E. Bishop, Esq. Frank Partnoy, Esq. BISHOP PARTNOY LLP 1717 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 787-5769 Email: bobby@bishoppartnoy.com frank@bishoppartnoy.com METEORA: Clarke and Vogt Sue Over Securities Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN CLARKE and RODRIGO FERREIRA DA CRUZ VOGT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENJAMIN CHOW, METEORA, HAYDEN DAVIS, GIDEON DAVIS, CHARLES THOMAS DAVIS, and KELSIER LABS, LLC d/b/a KELSIER VENTURES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03268 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities and Exchange Acts. According to the complaint, the Defendants aggressively marketed $M3M3 as an innovative and singularly lowrisk digital asset investment, closely tied with the M3M3 Platform and Meteora. Their promotional campaign emphasized four purported distinctions between $M3M3 and other memecoins: (i) its status as the "debut" asset on Meteora's revolutionary investor-friendly Platform; (ii) investors' ongoing entitlement to revenue generated on Meteora; (iii) the central involvement of Defendant Chow, a highly-respected and trusted leader in the Solana ecosystem, and his seeming exclusive responsibility for the project; (iv) the Tokens' launch on Meteora, a purportedly sophisticated, reliable. and transparent DEX. Thus, Defendants -- directly and through paid promoter, influencers, and partners -- publicly presented $M3M3 as a uniquely reliable memecoin investment offered by sophisticated and trusted leaders in the Solana ecosystem (Defendants Meteora and Chow), in connection with the launch of an innovative investment platform specifically designed to protect investors and offer stable returns, backed by trading fees generated on Meteora. In reality, however, $M3M3 was a blatant fraud jointly planned and perpetrated by Meteora, Kelsier, and the Individual Defendants, says the suit. Operated and controlled from New York, NY by its co-founder and CEO, Defendant Benjamin Chow, Meteora is an unincorporated decentralized exchange operating on the Solana blockchain. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret B. Hoppin, Esq. Timothy W. Grinsell, Esq. HOPPIN GRINSELL LLP 11 Hanover Square, Ste. 1405 New York, NY 10005 E-mail: margot@hoppingrinsell.com tim@hoppingrinsell.com - and - Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Ste. 114 New York, NY 10036 E-mail: maxb@burwick.law MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Stays Ramey Suit Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramey v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768 (W.D. Wash., Filed Aug. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order on joint motion to stay proceedings in aid of mediation. In lieu of staying this matter, with no objection by the parties, the Court terminates the pending motion to compel, motion to certify class, and sealed motion to certify class during the pendency of mediation and settlement negotiations. The motions will be reinstated should this matter not resolve in mediation. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Molina is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach, California, United States. The company provides health insurance to individuals through government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Lee Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JinWon Lee, an individual, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-03426-TMD was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03642-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: Peter J. Flowers, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: (630) 232-6333 Fax: (630) 845-8982 Email: pjf@meyers-flowers.com - and - John H. Gomez, Esq. Joshua Rhett Harris, Esq. GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS 755 Front Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 237-3490 Fax: (619) 237-3496 Email: john@getgomez.com josh@thegomezfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Michaels Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salvatore Mary Michaels, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of William Michaels, Deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 4:25-cv-00380 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-03578-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 - Jemma Casandra Cota, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N. Stetson Avenue, 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (480) 335-2469 Email: info@molllawgroup.com MTC FINANCIAL: Yerkanyan Sues For Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR YERKANYAN, Plaintiff v. MTC FINANCIAL INC. DBA TRUSTEE CORPS, AND REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00813 (S.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) is a class action concerning the increasingly common practice by debt collectors like Defendants to resurrect long-dormant second-lien mortgage debts after over a decade with no communications to Plaintiff and other similarly situated borrowers on those debts, only to demand immediate payment of interest, fees, and principal that the borrowers had no opportunity to avoid. According to the complaint, the Defendants seek to collect and are collecting debts, including retroactively assessed interest and fees, from borrowers who rightfully believed those debts no longer existed, and who are now faced with the imminent and actual loss of their homes to foreclosure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful practice and asserts claims for breach of implied covenant, and for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, MTC Financial Inc. offers full-service default and foreclosure solutions to mortgage companies and major financial institutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George G. Mgdesyan, Esq. Araksya Boyadzhyan, Esq. MGDESYAN LAW FIRM 4529 Sherman Oaks Avenue Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 386-6777 Facsimile: (818) 754-6778 E-mail: araksya@mgdesyanlaw.com NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Self Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- GARY SELF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC.; and HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, INC. D/B/A VITRUVIAN HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00132 (E.D. Tenn., April 22, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential protected health information and personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data when it was maintained on the Defendants' internet-accessible network without adequate safeguards against unauthorized access and exfiltration. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to NRS's negligent acts and omissions and utter failure to protect it. Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from the Defendants because of the data's value in exploiting and stealing Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' inadequate data security and breaches of its duties to handle Private Information with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was accessed and acquired by cybercriminals and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals. The present and continuing risk to the Plaintiff and Class Members as victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc. specializes in customer service, collections, and recovery management experience, supporting all areas of financial servicing across industries. [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 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com NEBRASKA BOOK: Seeks OK of Limited Objection Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, and STEVEN SHOWALTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC.; NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC.; CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP; and AB LENDING SPVI I, LLC d/b/a MOUNTAIN RIDGE CAPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting limited objection to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, Appoint Class Representatives, and Appoint Class Counsel. Concise Capital does not object to the relief sought in the Motion generally. However, Concise Capital objects to Plaintiffs' proposed class definitions because they: (a) are overbroad, (b) are not consistent with the claims stated in Plaintiffs' operative Complaint of which Defendants were given notice, and (c) appear to assume critical facts which Plaintiffs' have yet to prove. Concise Capital also seeks to ensure that any order granting the Motion contain certain clarifying language reserving the substantive defenses and affirmative defenses of Defendants. Counsel for all Parties have conferred over the past several weeks on the appropriate class definitions and have agreed in principle on the following revised class definitions. "Former employees whose employment site was 4700 S. 19th Street, Lincoln, NE 68512, who were terminated as the result of a mass layoff or plant closing between Feb. 27, 2023 and April 28, 2023, and who did not receive 60 days' notice." (the "WARN Class"); and "Former employees, who were terminated on or after Feb. 27, 2023, and who were not paid their accrued but unused paid time off as wages upon termination." (the NWCPA Class"). Nebraska Book Company sells and rents new and used text books to students. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sn1YqP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher R. Hedican, Esq. Kenneth W. Hartman, Esq. Jeremy C. Hollembeak, Esq. Kira K. Strandquest, Esq. BAIRD HOLM LLP 1700 Farnam St, Ste 1500 Omaha, NE 68102-2068 Telephone: (402) 344-0500 Facsimile: (402) 344-0588 E-mail: chedican@bairdholm.com khartman@bairdholm.com jhollembeak@bairdholm.com kstrandquest@bairdholm.com NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Case Management Conference Set for May 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti et al v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. -- The Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Ms. George's claims and the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. -- The Court denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Horti and Mr. Owen, although they are limited in the representations they can challenge. -- The Court sets a further Case Management Conference for Tuesday, May 27 at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video. -- An updated statement is due by May 20, 2025. The statement should address the parties' proposed schedule for class certification briefing. This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 83 and 88. The Court denies the Defendant's summary judgment motion as to Mr. Owen. But because it is undisputed Mr. Owen looked at just the name of the product before purchasing it, Mr. Owen is limited to challenging the "Boost Glucose Control" representation. The Plaintiffs sued in December 2021, alleging "the Products are mislabeled, and trick reasonable consumers into believing that they can prevent and treat diabetes." In February 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative consolidated complaint. The Defendant markets and distributes Boost Glucose Control and Boost Glucose Control High Protein. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CzFgkH at no extra charge.[CC] NET POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against NET Power Inc. ("Net Power" or the "Company") (NYSE:NPWR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and docketed under 25-cv-00296, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Net Power securities during the Class Period, you have until June 17, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Net Power is a clean energy technology company. Its business is centered around its so-called "Net Power Cycle" technology, which is a purported novel power generation system designed to produce reliable and affordable electricity from natural gas while capturing virtually all atmospheric emissions. Net Power has a facility located in La Porte, Texas, which it uses to demonstrate the viability of the NET Power Cycle, referred to as "La Porte" or the "Demonstration Plant." Net Power conducts research and equipment validation testing campaigns at the Demonstration Plant as part of its efforts to develop its first utility-scale plant, which it variably refers to as "SN1" or "Project Permian." Project Permian is located at a site in the Permian Basin of West Texas. Since before the start of the Class Period, Defendants had represented that they anticipated SN1 to be operational in 2026. In 2023, Net Power's cost estimate for Project Permian was roughly $950 million, which increased to $1.1 billion in 2024. Net Power's commencement of commercial operations and, accordingly, its business and financial prospects, rely on its completion of Project Permian. As such, Defendants' projected timelines and cost estimates for Project Permian are of particular importance to investors and analysts. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Net Power was unlikely to complete Project Permian on schedule, and the project was likely to be significantly more expensive than Defendants had represented, because of, inter alia, supply chain issues and numerous site- and region-specific challenges; (ii) accordingly, Defendants' projections regarding the time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were unrealistic; (iii) the increased time and capital needed to complete Project Permian were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 14, 2023, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2023 results and providing a business update. Therein, the Company disclosed that "[d]ue to . . . tightness in the global supply chain, we are incorporating a 12-month cushion into our expected schedule for Project Permian" with Defendants "now expecting to achieve initial power generation sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028." This represented a significant delay from Defendants' initial schedule to have the plant operational by 2026. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.47 per share, or 18.54%, to close at $10.85 per share on November 14, 2023. On March 10, 2025, during pre-market hours, Net Power issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2024 results and providing a business update. Therein, Net Power disclosed that it "now estimates Project Permian's total installed cost to be between $1.7 billion and $2.0 billion"—significantly higher than its last estimate of $1.1 billion—"which is inclusive of non-recurring first-of-a-kind, Project Permian site-specific and owner costs[,]" advising that "there are a number of site- and region-specific challenges which impact cost." The Company further advised that Project Permian "would come online no earlier than 2029[,]" representing a significant delay from its prior timeline of sometime between the second half of 2027 and first half of 2028. In addition, Net Power reported that it ended 2024 "with $533 million in cash, cash equivalents, and investments, down from $580 million last quarter, primarily due to $13 million in operating cash outflows and $29 million in capital expenditures for La Porte upgrades and SN1 development." On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 31.46%, to close at $4.75 per share on March 10, 2025. Then, on April 15, 2025, Net Power issued a press release announcing that its President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") would depart the Company on May 1, 2025, and that the Company had appointed a new COO, effective immediately. On this news, Net Power's stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 5.75%, to close at $2.13 per share on April 16, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Tel.: (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 E-mail: dpeyton@pomlaw.com [GN] NEW YUNG WAH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chunyu Xia, et al., v. New Yung Wah Carrier, LLC, et.al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04475-HG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting following revised deadlines for plaintiffs' class certification motion: -- The Defendants' opposition to the motion to be submitted by May 14, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' reply to be filed by May 28, 2025. New Yung Wah is an active carrier in New York. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VCkgqW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Steven Seltzer, Esq. THE SELTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 125 Maiden Lane, Suite 507 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (646) 863-1909 Facsimile: (646) 863-1877 NEWEST BIOTECH: Civil Standing Order Entered -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FIRST BIOTECH INC., et al., v. NEWEST BIOTECH INC., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00768-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered a civil standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled in this court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with Local Rule 7. Lead trial counsel shall attend any proceeding before this court, including all Scheduling, Pretrial, and Settlement Conferences. All discovery matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Settlement Conference and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) As stated in Local Rule 16-15, the parties in every case must participate in a Settlement Conference or Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure. Newest Biotech is a supplier of chemical ingredients for food & beverage and industrial manufacturing industries. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fB3sSZ at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Cole FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled KENNETH COLE, SR., on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC, doing business as SHELLPOINT, and U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04265 (N.D. Ill., April 18, 2025), was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division to this U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 18, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04265 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant NewRez's attempts to collect debts in alleged violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. NEWREZ LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that offers residential mortgage loans. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tammy L. Adkins, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 750-5727 Facsimile: (312) 849-3690 E-mail: tadkins@mcguirewoods.com NORDIC WARE: Kaufmann Sues Over Bakeware's "Made in the USA" Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KAUFMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDIC WARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-01379-ECT-DLM (D. Minn., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act and New York's General Business Law, false advertising, and fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Nordic Ware Aluminum Bakeware products. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells the products as "made in the USA," "made in America," or "American made," along with a prominent image of the flag of the United States of America. In reality, all, or virtually all of the aluminum and bauxite used to make the products is obtained outside of the United States, and all of the transformation of bauxite into alumina and the transformation of alumina into aluminum occurred in Canada. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages because they would have either paid less for the products or would not have purchased them at all had they known they were not made in the United States, says the suit. Nordic Ware, Inc. is a manufacturer of bakeware products, with its principal place of business in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary St., Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com OTAY LAKES: Class Cert Hearing in Renn Suit Continued to June 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT RENN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. OTAY LAKES BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01139-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order that: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification currently scheduled for June 6, 2025 shall be continued to June 27, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. 2. The Defendant's Opposition, currently due to be filed and served on April 18, 2025, shall be continued to May 16, 2025; and 3. The Plaintiff's reply brief, currently due to be filed and served on May 2, 2025, shall be continued to May 30, 2025. The parties shall reach out to the Magistrate Judge to obtain new dates for discovery and expert deadlines and other pre-trial related deadlines. On April 14, 2025, the Defendant filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and related briefing schedule. The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on March 3, 2025. On April 14, 2025, four days prior to its opposition deadline, Defendant filed the instant ex parte application to extend the briefing schedule and the hearing date of June 6, 2025, for the motion for class certification. Further, Defendant has not explained why it needs three additional months or 20 weeks to file its opposition to the class certification motion. Because the only discovery that remains is Plaintiff's deposition, the Court GRANTS in part Defendant's motion to continue the briefing schedule and hearing date. Otay Lakes is a craft brewery based in Chula Vista, CA, offering a variety of unique and flavorful beers to the local community. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M9SDTw at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFIC PREMIER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Columbia --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: PPBI), relating to the proposed merger with Columbia Banking System, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Pacific Premier stockholders will receive 0.9150 of a share of Columbia common stock for each Pacific Premier share they hold, and own approximately 30% of Columbia's outstanding shares of common stock. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pacific-premier-bancorp-inc-ppbi/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerra Due August 10, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE GUERRA, et al., v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a revised scheduling order as follows: Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Deadline/Hearing Date Case Management Conference: Apr. 17, 2025 Class Certification Non-Expert Nov. 13, 2025 Discovery Completion: Updated Case Management Conference Statement: Nov. 6, 2025 Further Case Management Conference: Nov. 13, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Apr. 17, 2026 Disclosures: Defendants' Class Certification Expert Apr. 17, 2026 Disclosures: Class Certification Expert Discovery June 26, 2026 Completion: Last Day to File Class Certification Motion: Aug. 10, 2026 Oppositions to Class Certification Motion: Sept. 24, 2026 Replies in support of Class Certification Oct. 23, 2026 Motion: Hearing on Class Certification Motion Nov. 5, 2026 and/or further case-management conference: Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jGBCkF at no extra charge.[CC] PATRICK LABAT: Hambrick Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NKENEGEN HAMBRICK, et al., v. FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK LABAT, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05658-SDG-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Bly entered an order denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. After Plaintiffs filed the amended motion, the parties submitted a proposal, which the Court accepted, that extended the deadline for Defendants to respond to the amended motion. As a result of that extension, Defendants will not respond to the amended motion until 30 days after the Court rules on a motion to dismiss, which Defendants filed yesterday. The motion to dismiss is obviously in the early stages, and it has not yet been responded to or briefed. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cdkJt5 at no extra charge.[CC] PENNEY OPCO: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid Set for May 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order setting oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court directs the Plaintiff Noelle Arguelles and the Defendant Penney OpCo, LLC to appear on Friday, May 16, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 12B for oral argument. The parties should be prepared to discuss the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgement. Penney is a major department store chain in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qy8iNt at no extra charge.[CC] PHARMAVITE LLC: Lang and Sevy Sue Over Deceptive Sale of Vitamins ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA LANG and MILDRED SEVY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHARMAVITE LLC d/b/a NATURE MADE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00933-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's misleading representations and unfair business practices in relation with its marketing and sale of its prenatal vitamin products. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's Nature Made prenatal vitamin products, including but not limited to Nature Made's Prenatal Multivitamin Folic Acid + DHA Softgels. The Defendant's products are misleadingly marketed as safe for pregnant and lactating women and their fetuses, newborns, and infants yet are unfit for their intended use because they contain, or risk containing, toxic plastic chemicals. Recent third-party testing has revealed2 that the said Products contain numerous plastic chemicals, including di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, and dicyclohexyl phthalate, phthalate substitute diethylhexyl terephthalate, and a bisphenol, bisphenol A, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now bring claims against Defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for (1) violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Act; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) unjust enrichment/restitution. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Pharmavite LLC d/b/a Nature Made advertises, markets, manufactures, distributes, and sells its vitamin products throughout California and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com PILLPACK LLC: Court Approves $6.5MM Settlement Fund --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, v. PILLPACK LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an order that: 1. The action is a class action against Defendant on behalf a class of persons defined as follows (the "Settlement Class"): "All persons or entities within the United States who between March 13, 2018, and June 16, 2019, received a non- emergency telephone call promoting goods and services on behalf of PillPack LLC as part of the PillPack Performance Media Campaign: (i) to a cellular telephone number through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (ii) Performance Media or its agents live transferred the call to a PillPack call center on the DNIS 866-298-0058; and (iii) Performance Media or its agents did not obtain the cellular telephone number through Rewardzoneusa.com, Nationalconsumercenter.com, finddreamjobs.com, instantplaysweepstakes.com, startacareertoday.com, samplesandsavings.com, sweepstakesaday.com, Surveyvoices.com, or Financedoneright.com between June 19, 2017, and May 3, 2019, before the date(s) of the call(s). The Settlement Class does not include Defendant, any entity that has a controlling interest in Defendant, and Defendant's current or former directors, officers, counsel, and their immediate families. The Settlement Class also does not include any person who validly requests exclusion from the Settlement Class, or Melvin Tyson, who validly requested exclusion from the certified class. 2. The Settlement Agreement submitted by the parties for the Settlement Class is finally approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. 3. Upon consideration of Class Counsel's application for fees and costs and other expenses, the Court awards $2,166,450 as reasonable attorney fees and $338,016 as reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, which shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. 4. Upon consideration of the application for approval of a service award, Class Representative Aaron Williams is awarded the sum of $20,000 to be paid from the Settlement Fund, for the service he has performed for and on behalf of the Settlement Class. 5. This action is dismissed on the merits, in its entirety, with prejudice and without costs except as provided elsewhere in this order, including without limitation all Released Claims of Settlement Class Members against the Released Parties. 6. The Court finds, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay, and directs the Clerk to enter final judgment. 16. Melvin Tyson validly excluded themself from the Class and is thus excluded from the terms of this Order. The Plaintiff first moved for class certification on July 24, 2020. On Aug. 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, which creates a fund of $6,500,000 that will be used for court-approved attorney fees and costs, any service award to Williams, costs of settlement notice and settlement administration, and payments to class members who submit valid claims. PillPack is a full-service pharmacy that delivers medications in multi-dose packaging to patients' homes. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zquEra at no extra charge.[CC] PIM BRANDS USA: Rogers Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronnie Rogers and Cindy Rogers, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. DESIGN 1 GROUP, LLC; ZACH DILLON; SOLAR MOSAIC, LLC; CONNEXUS CREDIT UNION; CONCORD SERVICING, LLC f/k/a CONCORD SERVICING COMPANY; and NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 25-CI-00319 was removed from the Circuit Court of McCracken County, Kentucky, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on April 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00053-BJB. The Plaintiffs purport to bring a class action on behalf of "all Kentucky residents who were enticed to purchase solar panels and/or solar panel installation services by Defendants or representative(s) of any of them during the previous five years, who tendered payment pursuant to the contracted agreement, and from whom Defendants accepted payment of money without providing either solar panels functioning consistently with the marketing promises made or a refund."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tanya Bowman, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 400 W. Market Street, Suite 3200 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 589-5400 Fax: (502) 581-1087 Email: tbowman@fbtlaw.com - and - Shawn D. Fabian, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 321 N. Clark Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 499-6300 Facsimile: (312) 499-6301 Email: SFabian@sheppardmullin.com PINNACLE EMPLOYMENT: Bell Seeks Proper OT Wages for Case Aides -------------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes Bell, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pinnacle Employment Services LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Pinnacle Family Services LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Paul Harrison, and Candace Harrison, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01311-MTM (D. Ariz., April 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime for all hours worked exceeding 40 hours in a workweek, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Statute. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a case aide on January 6, 2025 and continues in that role through the present time. She and other case aides regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and were required to work off the clock without receiving proper overtime wages. In addition, the Defendant is also engaged in the regular practice of failing to accurately record the time during which it suffered or permitted Plaintiff to work, says the suit. Pinnacle Employment Services LLC is an Arizona limited liability company that provides monitoring and supervisory services and transportation to individuals and families who require supervised visits in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: patti@frankelsyverson.com PKL SERVICES INC: Balvaneda Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Danny Balvaneda, on behalf of others similarly situated v. PKL Services, Inc., 4M HR Logistics, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU011586C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 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-00963-GPC-JLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations. PKL Services, Inc. -- https://www.pklservices.com/ -- is a California-based company that provides professional services in the areas of aerospace maintenance, training, logistics, and program management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren Nicole Vega, Esq. Mariela Romo, Esq. Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 693-4307 Email: lauren@ferrarovega.com mariela@ferrarovega.com nick@ferrarovega.com The Defendants are represented by: Virginia L. Miller, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLLP 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 383-2997 Fax: (619) 235-0398 Email: gina.miller@procopio.com PONY AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Pony AI Inc. (NASDAQ: PONY) resulting from allegations that Pony AI may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Pony AI securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 25, 2025, before market hours, Pony AI issued a press release in which it announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31, 2024. In the press release, Pony AI stated that total revenue was down to "$35.5. million in the fourth quarter of 2024, representing a decrease of 29.8% from US$50.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. The decrease was mainly influenced by the timing of project-based revenue recognition." In addition, the press release stated that robotaxi services were down to "$2.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, representing a decrease of 61.9% from US$6.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. The decrease was mainly driven by reduced service fees from providing autonomous vehicle engineering solutions based on our collaboration projects' progression schedule." On this news, Pony AI's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell $1.07 per ADS, or 8.1%, to close at $12.14 per ADS on March 25, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faircloth Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jaclyn Brooke Faircloth, as guardian ad litem of H.F. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00252 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-00971-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. 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: Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Fax: (805) 270-7100 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.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 GROUP: Griffin Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ja Dale Griffin, individually and on behalf of his minor child, Z.G. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00206 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-00972-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. 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: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (305) 529-8858 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.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 GROUP: Hisserich Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas Hisserich, A. H. by and through Guardian Nicholas Hisserich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00444 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-01015-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: Patrick R. Carey, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117-2212 Phone: (415) 913-7800 Fax: (415) 759-4112 Email: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Zarate Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ZARATE, on behalf of his minor child, A.Z, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.; and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case 3:25-cv-00985-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) alleges violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and California Privacy Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding and protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal identifying information and protected health information by failing to control, design, adopt, implement, control, direct, oversee, manage, monitor, and audit appropriate data security processes, controls, policies, procedures, protocols to ensure that all software and hardware systems into which it placed consumers' data were protected against the unauthorized release, disclosure, and dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI. But for the Defendants' negligent conduct or breach of the above-described duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members, their PII and PHI would not have been compromised. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful actions, inactions, and want of ordinary care that directly and proximately caused the Data Breach, Plaintiff and all other Class Members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, economic damages and other injuries, says the suit. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12 education. The Company offers student information systems, enrollment, unified classroom, unified administration, unified talent, unified insights, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: srios@bm.net POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Flick Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Nicole Flick, for herself and as parent and natural guardian of M.C., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Bain Capital, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-00232 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-00969-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. 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: Yana A. Hart, Esq. Bryan P. Thompson, Esq. Ryan Jack Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: (213) 788-4050 Fax: (213) 788-4070 Email: yhart@clarksonlawfirm.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: Garcia Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christine Garcia, R.G., I.G., a minors; Billy Ho, B.H., a minor; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01803 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern 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-01005-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract 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: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Patrick Thomas Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com - and - Jane Farrell, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. David Michael Berger, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway Suite 2000-2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 929-4495 Fax: (510) 350-9701 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.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: Gauron Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kelsey Gauron, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, R.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00519 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 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01030-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Personal Injury. 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: Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4949 Fax: (708) 628-4950 Email: whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and - Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Robert Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 840-5900 Fax: (602) 840-3012 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com - and - Shana E Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-4006 Phone: (415) 315-6337 Fax: (415) 315-4813 Email: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gifford Suit Transferred to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Gifford, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor children, J.M., C.M., J.S.M, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00709 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 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01032-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: David Michael Berger, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-4006 Phone: (415) 315-6337 Fax: (415) 315-4813 Email: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com PREMERA BLUE: Plaintiffs' Partial Summary Judgment Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B., individually and on behalf of their minor child A.B.; C.M. and A.H., individually and on behalf of their minor child J.M.; and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order that: (1) The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is granted; The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Premera's Medical Policy – 7.01.557 violates ACA section 1557 by facially discriminating on the basis of sex; (2) Premera's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a) The Plaintiffs' claims under ACA section 1557 for age discrimination are dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust; (b) Premera's cross-motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied; (3) The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied; (4) The parties' respective motions to exclude experts are moot with respect to dispositive motion practice and otherwise deferred; (5) Counsel shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report within 21 days of the date of this Order, indicating (a) whether a trial will be necessary in this matter, (b) what issues remain for trial, (c) whether the parties will be prepared to proceed on the current trial date of Sept. 15, 2025, and (d) how many days the parties anticipate needing for trial in light of its reduced scope; and (6) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. The Plaintiffs allege that Premera's categorical exclusion of mastectomies for transgender youth constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex and age in violation of Title IX and the Age Discrimination Act ("AgeDA"), respectively, which are incorporated by reference in ACA section 1557. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All individuals who have been, are, or will be participants or beneficiaries in Premera health plans and/or health benefit plans (whether insured or administered by Premera) who required, require, or will require treatment with gender-affirming chest surgery to treat their diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and who were or will be denied pre-authorization or coverage of such surgery because they were or are under the age of 18." The Plaintiffs C.M. and A.H. are the parents of J.M., who was seventeen years of age when the operative pleading was filed on June 4, 2024, but has since turned eighteen. Premera is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=idL9gW at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE PREMIUM: Agrees to Settle Vehicle Claims Suit for $43M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Progressive Premium Insurance Co. agreed to a $43 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve allegations it undervalued total loss vehicle claims. The Progressive class action settlement benefits Georgia residents who made a first-party claim on a vehicle based on an Instant Report from Mitchell with a Projected Sold Adjustment applied to at least one comparable vehicle. The settlement includes Georgia residents who made a first-party claim on a Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. policy between Oct. 11, 2015, and Feb. 18, 2025, and on a Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois policy between June 8, 2016, and Feb. 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Progressive of undervaluing total loss claims in Georgia by applying a flawed methodology, resulting in policyholders being paid less than they were owed. Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. and Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois are part of Progressive Corp. which offers insurance coverage for vehicles, homes, and businesses. Progressive has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $43 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Progressive class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment, with the average estimated at $173. The final payout per person will depend on how many eligible class members participate in the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Progressive total loss class action lawsuit is scheduled for May 15, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible The Progressive class action settlement benefits Georgia residents who made a first-party claim on a vehicle based on an Instant Report from Mitchell with a Projected Sold Adjustment applied to at least one comparable vehicle. The settlement includes Georgia residents who made a first-party claim on a Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. policy between Oct. 11, 2015, and Feb. 18, 2025, and on a Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois policy between June 8, 2016, and Feb. 18, 2025. Potential Award $173 on average Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 04/30/2025 Case Name Brown v. Progressive Mountain Insurance Co. and Bost v. Progressive Premier Insurance Co. of Illinois, Consolidated Case No. 3:21-cv-00175-TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Final Hearing 05/15/2025 Settlement Website GATotalLossClaim.com Claims Administrator Brown v. Progressive Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4178 Portland, OR 97208-4178 info@GATotalLossClaim.com (888) 604-7469 Class Counsel Hank Bates Lee Lowther CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC Andrew J. Shamis Edwin E. Elliott SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Scott Edelsberg EDELSBERG LAW P.A. Edmund A. Normand NORMAND PLLC James L. Kauffman Brian A. Glasser Patricia M. Kipnis BAILEY & GLASSER LLP Jacob L. Phillips JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC Michael J. Lober William Greg Dobson LOBER & DOBSON LLC R. Brent Irby IRBY LAW LLC Defense Counsel Jeffrey S. Cashdan Zachary A. McEntyre J. Matthew Brigman Allison Hill White Erin M. Munger Julia B. Bates KING & SPALDING LLP [GN] PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-12772-SRC-CLW (Consolidated with Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-16231-SRC-CLW) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. ("PRUDENTIAL" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF MARCH 21, 2025: THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A PRUDENTIAL STOCKHOLDER, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS. THIS DERIVATIVE ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR MONETARY PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to the above-captioned stockholder derivative action have reached an agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and for the benefit of Prudential. The terms of the settlement are set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 21, 2025 (the "Stipulation"). This notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. A link to the text of the Stipulation and the full-length Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Action may be found on the "Investors" page of Prudential's website at investors.prudential.com Under the terms of the Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, the Individual Defendants shall pay or cause to be paid to Prudential a sum of $10,000,000 (the "Settlement Fund"), minus the court-approved Fee and Expense Amount. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs' Counsel's demand, litigation, and settlement efforts caused Defendants to agree to make the cash payment to Prudential. In consideration of the substantial benefit conferred upon Prudential as a direct result of the Settlement and the efforts of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Derivative Action, and pursuant to a proposal made by the Mediator and accepted by the Settling Parties, Plaintiffs' Counsel may request Court approval of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $2,500,000.00 (i.e., 25% of the Settlement Fund). A hearing will be held on June 9, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey at the Martin Luther King Building and U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, N.J., 07101, Courtroom PO No. 2 (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement. Any Current Prudential Stockholder has a right, but is not required, to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, providing that he, she, or it is a shareholder of record or beneficial owner of Prudential common stock and was a stockholder of record or beneficial owner of Prudential common stock as of March 21, 2025. Any Current Prudential Stockholder who-satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such stockholder's own choosing and at such stockholder's own expense, or may appear on their own. However, you shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than May 26, 2025, you have filed with the Court a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (/n re Prudential Financial, Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2:20-cv-12772); 3. Proof of being a Prudential stockholder currently and as of March 21, 2025; 3. The date(s) you acquired your Prudential stock; 4. A statement of each of each objection being made; 5. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and 6. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the written objection described above with the Court on or before May 26, 2025. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, at the Martin Luther King Building and U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, N.J., 07101 and served upon each of the following Settling Parties' counsel: Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: Craig W. Smith ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Lawrence P. Eagel BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10022 Counsel for Defendants: Susan R.Gittes DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, New York 10001. YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN May 26, 2025. Only stockholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise. If you fail to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above you shall be deemed to have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising-such objection(s). Inquiries may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Robbins LLP, 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92122, Telephone: (619) 525-3990; and Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620, New York, New York, 10022; Telephone: (212) 308-5858. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR PRUDENTIAL REGARDING THIS NOTICE BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Torres ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE TORRES and RHONDA HYMAN, ET AL., v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC., AND ASSURANCE IQ, LLC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The action is the latest in a line of cases challenging the use of third-party software to record website visitor activity without their knowledge. The Plaintiffs sue Defendants ActiveProspect, Prudential Financial, and Assurance IQ, alleging that ActiveProspect violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by intercepting, recording, and storing realtime interactions with a webform on Prudential’s website without consent. Because Plaintiffs have not shown that ActiveProspect attempted to understand or decipher the contents of Plaintiffs’ communications on its webform while the communications were in transit, there is no genuine dispute as to whether ActiveProspect read or attempted to read those communications under section 631. Further, because there is no predicate violation of section 631 on the part of ActiveProspect, there is no genuine dispute as to whether Prudential and Assurance aided and abetted ActiveProspect in violation of section 631. On June 28, 2024, Plaintiffs sought class certification solely for their section 631 claim. Prudential provides insurance, retirement planning, and investment management services to individuals and institutions worldwide. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Allr1b at no extra charge.[CC] READY CAPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ready Capital Corporation (NYSE: RC), a New York-based real estate finance firm, is grappling with intensifying investor scrutiny after being named in two securities class-action lawsuits that have cast a shadow over its financial reporting and sent its stock tumbling. Most recently, on April 23, 2025, a second lawsuit, styled Goebel v. Ready Capital Corporation, et al., No. 1:25-cv-03373 (S.D.N.Y.) alleges an expanded class period. The Goebel suit seeks to represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ready Capital common stock between August 8, 2024 and March 2, 2025. Hagens Berman is investigating the alleged claims and urges investors who purchased Ready Capital shares and suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may assist the firm's investigation to contact its attorneys. Expanded Class Period: Aug. 8, 2024-Mar. 2, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 5, 2025 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/rc Contact the Firm Now: RC@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 The Goebel Ready Capital (RC) Securities Class Action: The lawsuit accuses the company and several top executives of violating federal securities laws. Central to the complaint are allegations that Ready Capital repeatedly assured investors that the company was seeing improving credit metrics across its loan portfolio while downplaying the extent of trouble in its commercial real estate (CRE) loan portfolio, particularly regarding a sizable tranche of loans that were not performing as expected. More specifically, the Goebel complaint alleges that Ready Capital issued statements that were either misleading or omitted critical information about the true state of its business. Among the key contentions: -- Significant non-performing loans in Ready Capital's CRE portfolio were hampering its financial performance and were not likely to be collectible; -- The company's performance improvement initiatives failed to "further derisk[]" the CRE portfolio; -- In contrast to CEO Thomas E. Capasse's repeated assurances that the company's loan portfolio showed stabilizing credit metrics, the credit metrics were not stabilizing; and -- The significant non-performing loans in Ready Capital's CRE portfolio were not accurately reflected in the company's expected credit loss or valuation allowance and, as a result, the company's financial reporting was materially false and misleading. Investors learned the truth on March 3, 2025, when Ready Capital stunned the market with a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.80 per share and a full-year loss of $2.52 per share for 2024. The company attributed the downturn to "decisive actions" taken to strengthen its balance sheet, including a sweeping $284 million reserve for underperforming CRE loans. The company also halved its quarterly dividend and reported a sharp drop in book value. The market responded with alarm. Shares of Ready Capital nosedived nearly 27% following the announcement, wiping out a significant chunk of shareholder equity and raising fresh doubts about the company's risk management and disclosure practices. Hagens Berman's Investigation: Investor rights law firm Hagens Berman has launched an active investigation into Ready Capital's financial disclosures and practices during the class period. The firm, known for its focus on corporate accountability, is urging investors who suffered substantial losses to come forward and share information that could aid its probe. Reed Kathrein, a partner at Hagens Berman leading the investigation, stated, “Our investigation seeks to uncover whether Ready Capital deliberately obscured the severity of its non-performing loans, leaving investors in the dark about the true risks facing the company's commercial real estate portfolio." Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ready Capital should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RC@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] RENTOKIL INITIAL: Faces Securities Suit over Terminix Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rentokil Initial PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2025, that in November 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased American Depositary Shares in the United States between 1 December 2023 and 10 September 2024. The defendants are the company and three current and former senior executives, Andy Ransom, Stuart Ingall-Tombs, and Bradley Paulsen. The complaint alleges that management made false statements about the progress of the integration of Rentokil and Terminix and its impact upon growth in the US and seeks relief under section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC rule 10(b)5. Rentokil Initial PLC is a pest control, hygeine and sanitation company based in West Sussex, United Kingdom. In 2022, it acquired Terminix Global Holdings, Inc., an American termite and pest management services. REVOLVE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Influencer Campaigns ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzalo E. Mon, writing for Kelley Drye, reports that they recently posted about two lawsuits against Celsius and Shein alleging that the companies' influencer campaigns were deceptive because various influencers (who were also named in the suits) failed to clearly disclose that their posts were sponsored. The firms behind those two lawsuits have teamed up for a third one, this time against Revolve and three of its influencers: Cindy Mello, Tika Camaj, and Nienke Jansz. The complaint alleges that a Florida woman purchased products online from Revolve in 2025 because the brand was endorsed by the three influencers. Allegedly, the influencers did not clearly disclose that they were working with Revolve. The woman claims that she wouldn't have purchased the product if she knew that the influencers were paid or that they didn't pay for the clothes they were wearing in the posts. The complaint also alleges that the plaintiff and purported class members paid a premium for the Revolve products and that the "products proved to be of a lower value than the price paid. The difference in price can be attributed exclusively to the undisclosed endorsements." The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from each of the defendants. The fact pattern and the complaint in this case is essentially the same as in the two other cases, but it's worth noting that the plaintiffs quoted from a Section of Revolve's 2023 annual report in which the company talked about its "relationships with thousands of social media influencers." In the report, the company acknowledged the following risks: The failure by us, our employees, our network of social media influencers, our sponsors or third parties acting at our direction to abide by applicable laws and regulations in the use of social media platforms or otherwise, including intellectual property laws and tax reporting and compliance requirements, could subject us to regulatory investigations, class action lawsuits, liability, taxes, fines or other penalties and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. They were right about that. Companies that use influencers should be concerned about similar suits. Fortunately, unlike other areas where we've seen a flood of copy-and-paste lawsuits, lawsuits over influencer campaigns should be fairly easy to avoid with proper planning. This article provides some steps companies can take to reduce their risk of similar lawsuits. [GN] ROCKET COMPANIES: Plaintiff Allowed to File Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT, and ROCKET HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification to the extent the Plaintiff does not need leave of court to file a renewed class-certification motion. The further entered an order that the Plaintiff is directed to file, on or before May 9, 2025, supplemental briefing clarifying whether it wishes to pursue, in its individual capacity, the fraudulent misrepresentation claims (Counts III and IV) that Carl Shupe recently dismissed, and that the Plaintiff has abandoned in its contemplated renewed motion for class certification. In sum, although this Court has serious doubts that SoCal’s newly proposed class will satisfy all certification requirements, SoCal does not need leave of Court to file a renewed motion for class certification under Rule 23. On Feb. 12, 2024, Shupe and SoCal sought class certification. Shupe sought to represent the following proposed Class: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Rocket Companies, Inc. Class A common stock (NYSE: RKT) between Feb. 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby[.]" Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants;1 (b) members of the immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any person who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket; (e) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. And, relevant to the section20A insider trading claim for "contemporaneous" traders—Count II—SoCal sought to represent the following proposed Subclass: "All persons and entities within the Class that purchased publicly traded Rocket Class A common stock contemporaneously with Defendant Gilbert's and Defendant RHI's sale of Rocket Class A common stock on March 29, 2021[.]" Excluded from the Subclass are: (a) Defendants; (b) members of the immediate families of Defendants; (c) the subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendant Rocket and Defendant RHI; (d) any person who is an officer, director, or controlling person of Rocket; (e) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such excluded party. Rocket Companies is a Detroit-based fintech platform company consisting of personal finance and consumer technology brands. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSCz2n at no extra charge.[CC] RTFKT INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Claims on Crypto Assets ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential state and federal law claims on behalf of purchasers of Nike-themed non-fungible tokens ("NFTs"), crypto collectibles, or other crypto assets ("The Nike NFTs") issued by RTFKT, Inc. SO WHAT: If you purchased Nike NFTs issued by RTFKT, Inc., you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36711 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 2, 2024, RTFKT announced on the platform X, its plan to wind down RTFKT operations, injuring investors holding NFTs promoted by Nike. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] RUST-OLEUM CORP: Settlement in Bush Suit Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BUSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting preliminary approval of settlement: -- For purposes of the Settlement only, the Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class defined as: "All persons in the United States who, between May 13, 2016, and the date of entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, purchased in the United States, for personal or household consumption and not for resale or distribution, one of the Class Products." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding judges in the Action; (2) any member of those judges' immediate families; (3) Defendant; (4) any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (5) counsel for the Parties; and (6) any persons who timely opt-out of the Settlement Class. -- The Court orders that Anthony Bush is appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. -- The Court also orders that Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. and Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC are appointed Class Counsel. -- The Court shall conduct a Final Approval Hearing to determine final approval of the Agreement on Sept. 25, 2025. Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for home and industrial use. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SndH4l at no extra charge.[CC] SACRAMENTO, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hood Due August 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hood, et al., v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: July 2, 2025 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed July 23, 2025 by: -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be Aug. 13, 2025 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: Sept. 3, 2025 -- Any motion for class certification Aug. 18, 2025 shall be filed no later than: -- All motions, except for motions for Jan. 21, 2026 continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: On April 17, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to modify the scheduling order to continue deadlines by approximately two months. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California, lies at the confluence of the Sacramento River and American River. The district of Old Sacramento harkens back to the city's Gold Rush era, with wooden sidewalks and wagon rides.[CC] SALVATION ARMY: Judge OKs Class Suit Over Addiction Medications --------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Oster, writing for drugfree.org, reports that a federal judge has given the go-ahead for a class-action lawsuit against The Salvation Army that could expand access to addiction medications. The backstory: Three plaintiffs allege they were denied access to addiction treatment services by The Salvation Army because of their use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The Salvation Army bills itself as the "largest provider of residential drug and alcohol abuse treatment," running 122 Adult Rehabilitation Centers across the country as of late 2024. But it prohibits ~60 medications it says are "known to be abusive and addictive," including methadone and buprenorphine. The update: Last week, a judge gave an order establishing two classes for a class-action lawsuit. One allows individuals denied access to MOUD to file for injunctive relief, like an order that the facilities allow the medications. Any individual who takes MOUD as provided by a doctor and who seeks to participate in The Salvation Army's centers is eligible for this class. The other allows individuals who allege they have been harmed by The Salvation Army's policy to sue for damages. This class is only open to those who can document they were discharged from an Adult Rehabilitation Center for taking prescribed MOUD. The context: The judge's ruling relies on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which bars any group receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating against an individual solely on the basis of their disability. Other courts and the Department of Justice have also expressed on several occasions that denial of MOUD constitutes a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. What's coming: The injunctive class portion of the case will proceed to a non-jury trial. Why it's important: The lawsuit could demonstrate to facilities that denying access to MOUD can carry consequences and set a precedent that leads more treatment providers to offer MOUD regardless of their ideological objections. [GN] SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Settlement Deal in FTX Class Suit Reached ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Wynn, writing for The Block, reports that basketball legend Shaquille O'Neal and FTX customers have reached a settlement agreement years after starring in a commercial for the now bankrupt crypto exchange. O'Neal and the plaintiffs reached an "amicable proposed resolution," according to a court document filed on Wednesday, April 23, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The terms of the settlement will stay confidential until a motion is filed seeking preliminary approval, the filing read. The class action lawsuit was brought in late 2022 by Edwin Garrison, an Oklahoma man who says he bought an unregistered security from FTX after seeing the company's advertisements. Garrison filed the lawsuit on behalf of others impacted by the fallout, and claimed that promoters named in the suit failed to do due diligence before marketing the company to the public while also not disclosing the nature, scope or amount they were paid to do so. According to previous The Block reporting, the lawsuit took some dramatic turns in 2023 when lawyers tried to serve O'Neal at least 20 times. Later, O'Neal said court papers were "tossed" at his car in Georgia; thus, he was never actually served. Finally, a few weeks later, O'Neal was served in Miami at the Kaseya Center (formerly FTX Arena) during Game 4 of the NBA's Eastern Conference Finals. [GN] SHOPIFY INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Class Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetics News, reports that a San Francisco appeals court has given leave for a privacy class action case to proceed against Shopify. The Canadian e-commerce platform is accused of collecting personal identifying data from people who make purchases on websites of retailers from California. THE DETAILS: According to a report published by Reuters, a Californian resident claims that Shopify installed cookies on his iPhone without his consent and used that data to create a profile it could then sell. THE WHY? Shopify's argument that its actions were not specific to California was dismissed by the appeals court. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlow ruled, per Reuters, "Shopify deliberately reached out by knowingly installing tracking software onto unsuspecting Californians' phones so that it could later sell the data it obtained, in a manner that was neither random, isolated or fortuitous." [GN] SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Shareholders' Suit for $37.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gabrielle Saulsbery, writing for Banking Dive, reports that Silvergate Capital Corp. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit initiated by its shareholders for $37.5 million, court documents show. The global settlement, if approved by a judge, resolves litigation over how the firm will assign director and officer insurance proceeds. It also resolves allegations that Silvergate misled investors on how the November 2022 collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, one of its largest customers, would affect its financial position. The global settlement "eliminates complex, expensive and uncertain litigation," SCC said in court documents Tuesday, April 22, and allows the company to focus on moving forward with its Chapter 11 proceedings. "While more remains to be done, the approval and consummation of the Securities Litigation Settlement and Indemnification Settlement remove numerous barriers to confirmation and thus are a significant step towards resuming the process of confirming a chapter 11 plan," SCC wrote. The class action suit is part of SCC's larger bankruptcy court case, which began in 2023 when its subsidiary Silvergate Bank began to voluntarily wind down just months after FTX's own bankruptcy. By agreeing to the settlement, SCC and several former Silvergate Bank executives, including former CEO Alan Lane and former finance chief Antonio Martino, have not admitted any liability, fault or violation of law. They "vigorously deny all allegations and claims asserted against them but are … entering into the Settlements to avoid the risk, burden and expense of continued litigation," SCC wrote. Working to resolve the case "has been key to minimizing, to the extent possible, continued litigation risk and exposure to the Indemnified Individuals, thereby increasing the value available to other estate constituents," SCC wrote. An attorney for SCC did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] SOMCHAI AND COMPANY: Yang Must File Class Action Notice by May 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANG v. SOMCHAI AND COMPANY INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-12742 (D.N.J., Filed May 21, 2019), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a notice on or before May 15, 2025, stating explicitly whether Plaintiff is abandoning his class and collective action claims in their entirety to seek default judgment solely as to his individual claims. The Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and motion for attorney's fees are administratively terminated pending receipt of Plaintiff's notice. Although Plaintiff has now clarified that he seeks a default only on behalf of himself and not the proposed class, he has not yet explicitly abandoned his class and collective claims. Instead, the Plaintiff has indicated that he "has never made any indication that [he] would like a class certified" and highlighted that "nowhere in this process did plaintiff state that [he] would like to make an application for class certification." The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Somchai was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.[CC] SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Scheduling Conference in Creeps Set for June 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CREEPS, INC. et al., v. SPIRIT HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-02325-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order setting scheduling conference on June 20, 2025: The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes. This matter is set for a Scheduling Conference on the above date via Zoom videoconference. If Plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all Defendants, Plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. The Court does not exempt parties appearing pro se from compliance with any of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, including Local Rule 16. See Local Rules 1-3, 83-2.2.3. "Counsel," as used in this order, includes parties appearing pro se. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference. Mandatory paper chambers copies of the Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be delivered to Judge Sykes’ drop box outside the door of Courtroom 2 by 5:00 PM on the first court day following the e-filing. Spirit Halloween operates as an online retail store. A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mhz69x at no extra charge.[CC] SUTTER HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $228.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deepak Grover, writing for OTE News, reports that Sutter Health, a prominent healthcare provider in Northern California, has agreed to pay $228.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing the healthcare giant of anti-competitive practices. The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for over a decade, claims that Sutter Health used its dominant position in the healthcare market to force insurers into unfair and monopolistic contracting practices. Background of the Case The class action, filed in 2012, centered around allegations that Sutter Health, which operates more than 24 hospitals and medical centers in the region, imposed "all-or-nothing" contracts with insurers. These contracts required insurers to include all of Sutter's hospitals in their healthcare networks, even when only a few of the hospitals were necessary. The plaintiffs argued that this practice led to inflated premiums for patients and limited the choices of insurers in the region, ultimately stifling competition. The settlement, which is expected to benefit approximately 3 million individuals and employers who paid premiums for fully insured health plans, follows years of legal disputes and negotiations between Sutter Health and the plaintiffs. The Settlement Agreement Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Sutter Health will pay $228.5 million to resolve the claims brought by insurers and consumers. The settlement is pending approval from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. If approved, it would mark a significant resolution to a case that has had far-reaching implications on the competitive landscape of the healthcare market in California. The settlement is designed to provide compensation to individuals who were impacted by the alleged anti-competitive behavior. Specifically, it will benefit individuals who were enrolled in health plans provided by major insurers such as Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California, Health Net, UnitedHealthcare, and Aetna between January 1, 2011, and March 8, 2021. Sutter Health has agreed to settle the lawsuit without admitting to any wrongdoing. Both parties have emphasized that this settlement is in the best interests of all involved, and it allows for an end to the litigation without the uncertainty and cost of further legal proceedings. Broader Implications for the Healthcare Industry The settlement comes on the heels of a 2019 case in which Sutter Health agreed to pay $575 million to resolve antitrust claims brought by the California Attorney General's office and other parties. While that case focused on similar allegations of anti-competitive conduct, the 2025 settlement marks a key development in Sutter Health's ongoing efforts to resolve its legal challenges related to its market power. Experts have noted that this settlement could set a significant precedent for future antitrust cases within the healthcare sector, especially as consolidation continues to increase in the industry. The settlement also underscores the growing scrutiny of healthcare providers who wield significant influence over pricing and the ability to negotiate contracts with insurers. Additionally, the outcome highlights the continued importance of antitrust enforcement in safeguarding consumers' access to affordable and competitive healthcare. In recent years, there has been increasing concern over the consolidation of health systems, which some believe could lead to higher prices and fewer options for patients. What Happens Next? The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court, and if granted, Sutter Health will begin distributing the funds to affected parties. This will likely include direct payments to individuals who were enrolled in health plans during the relevant time frame and were subject to the inflated premiums. It is important to note that while this settlement resolves the class action lawsuit, it does not address all of the concerns raised by the plaintiffs in terms of the broader impact of Sutter Health's market practices. Sutter Health's decision to settle may help mitigate the impact of these lawsuits, but questions about the long-term effects of market consolidation and monopolistic practices remain. Conclusion The $228.5 million settlement marks a major development in the long-running antitrust class action lawsuit involving Sutter Health. The case sheds light on the challenges within the healthcare sector and underscores the importance of antitrust regulation to ensure a competitive market that serves the interests of consumers. While Sutter Health denies any wrongdoing, the settlement is a significant step toward resolving a complex legal issue that has impacted millions of people in California. As healthcare providers continue to consolidate and dominate regional markets, the settlement of this case serves as a reminder of the critical role of antitrust enforcement in ensuring that healthcare remains affordable, accessible, and competitive for all consumers. [GN] TOSHIBA AMERICA: $435K Settlement Fund in Gregerson Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Gregerson, v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-01201-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement and approval of class notice. The court further orders the following: A. The court appoints Plaintiff Kevin Gregerson as Class Representative; B. The court appoints Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Federman & Sherwood as Class Counsel; C. The court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to further consideration at the final approval stage; D. The court appoints RG2 Claims Administration, LLC as Settlement Administrator; Accordingly, the hearing set for May 1, 2025, is vacated and off calendar. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All United States residents who were mailed notice by TABS that their personal information was impacted in a data incident beginning on approximately December 4, 2023." However, the Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) TABS, the Related Entities, and their officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iv) any judges assigned to this case and their staff and family; and (v) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following California subclass: "All persons residing in California who were mailed notification of the Data Incident from TABS at a California address." Under the Settlement, Defendants agree to establish a non-reversionary common fund of $435,000.00 (the "Settlement Fund") to resolve all valid class claims, claims for attorneys' fees and costs, as well as payment of class representative compensation and the costs of administering the Settlement. The Plaintiff "is a former employee of" TABS and a "victim" of the Data Incident. In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges that TABS did not adequately safeguard its employees' PII, including by failing to "adequately train its employees on reasonable cybersecurity protocols or implement reasonable security measures." Toshiba provides copiers, printers, managed document services, and digital signage for businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2gDgU at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTORS: Illegally Collects Drivers' Info, Class Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ezra Amacher, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a federal class action lawsuit filed this week in Texas accused Toyota and an affiliated telematics aggregator of unlawfully collecting drivers' information and then selling that data to Progressive. The lawsuit alleges that Toyota and Connected Analytic Services (CAS) collected vast amounts of vehicle data, including location, speed, direction, braking and swerving/cornering events, and then shared that information with Progressive's Snapshot data sharing program. The class action seeks an award of damages, including actual, nominal, consequential damages, and punitive, and an order prohibiting further collection of drivers' location and vehicle data. The lawsuit was filed by Philip Siefke, a Florida resident who in 2021 purchased a new Toyota RAV4 XLE equipped with a telematics device that can track and collect driving data. Siefke attempted to sign up for an insurance policy with Progressive in January 2025. After opting out of Progressive's Snapshot program in the online sign up process, however, a background pop-up window appeared, notifying Siefke that Progressive was already in possession of his driving data, the lawsuit says. A Progressive customer service representative explained to Siefke over the phone that the carrier had obtained his driving data from tracking technology installed in his RAV4. Siefke inquired with Toyota why his driving data was shared without his permission, he was told he unknowingly signed up for a trial of sharing his driving data captured by the Tracking Technology and that he had to opt out of the data sharing. Progressive did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit alleges Toyota never provided Siefke with any sort of notice that the car manufacture would share his driving data with third parties. When Siefke followed up with Progressive to inquire about the exact flow of his driving data, he was told that Progressive obtains data from CAS, a data aggregator that provides telematics and vehicle build data to insurance companies. A 2022 Toyota press release announcing the automaker's partnership with CAS says "telematics data and driver information is shared only at the express request and direction of Toyota customers." CAS is an affiliate of Toyota Insurance Management Solutions (TIMS). TIMS formed a separate partnership with Progressive to provide owners of telematics-connected vehicles with an opportunity to seek insurance discounts. Progressive said that Toyota customers have the ability to enroll in connected services upon purchasing select Toyota vehicles, and once enrolled, data is collected that the owner can later consent to share with Progressive for a potential discount. The lawsuit alleges that despite Toyota and CAS's commitment to customer privacy and representation, the companies nonetheless illegally share driving data. The lawsuit says class members suffered actual injury from having their driving data collected and sold to third parties including, but not limited to, damage to and diminution in the value of their driving data, violation of their privacy rights; (c) the likelihood of future theft of their driving data. [GN] TREACE MEDICAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Prices, McCluney Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MCCLUNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC., JOHN T. TREACE, and MARK L. HAIR, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Treace Medical's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Treace Medical securities at artificially inflated prices between May 8, 2023, and May 7, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) competition impacted the demand for and utilization of its primary product, the Lapiplasty 3D Bunion Correction System (the "Lapiplasty"); (2) as a result, Treace Medical's revenue declined and the company needed to accelerate its plans to offer a product that was an alternative to osteotomy (a surgical procedure that involves cutting and realigning a bone to improve its position or function); and (3) the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $6.95, or nearly 63 percent, to close at $4.17 per share on May 8, 2024, on unusually high volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. is a medical technology company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, PA 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 375-9000 Email: lgrossman@cridenlove.com mcriden@cridenlove.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 Email: brian@schallfirm.com TRUE FABRICATIONS: Miller Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE FABRICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00321 (W.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://fosterandrye.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. True Fabrications, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TS INNOVATION: July 14 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE TS INNOVATION ACQUISITIONS SPONSOR, L.L.C. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 2023-0509-LWW SUPPLEMENTAL CORRECTED SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLAIMS PROCESS AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE SUMMARY NOTICE PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN THIS CLASS ACTION HAS BEEN SUPPLEMENTED TO CORRECT THE PRIOR DESCRIPTION OF THE CLAIMS PROCESS, WHICH STATED THAT YOU DID NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO ENSURE MAXIMUM RECOVERY. UNDER THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, YOU MUST SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM IN ORDER TO RECEIVE MAXIMUM RECOVERY UNDER THE SETTLEMENT. TO ENSURE MAXIMUM RECOVERY IN THIS ACTION, YOU MUST SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM BY MAIL OR ELECTRONICALLY AT www.LatchStockholderSettlement.com BY NO LATER THAN JULY 14, 2025. Please be advised that the summary notice previously provided in this class action has been supplemented as set forth herein as per order of the Delaware Court of Chancery. As a result of the Court's Order, the Plan of Allocation has been modified as described herein. While the previously provided summary notice stated that Eligible Settlement Class Members did not need to submit a proof of claim to ensure maximum recovery under the Settlement, Eligible Settlement Class Members do need to submit a Proof of Claim in order to be eligible to receive maximum recovery. This Supplemental Corrected Summary Notice corrects the previous summary notice in that regard to make sure that you know to submit a proof of claim if you want to receive maximum recovery. TO: All record and beneficial holders of Eligible Shares (defined as shares of TSIA Common Stock owned by Settlement Class Members immediately after the Redemption Deadline (June 1, 2021 at 5:00 pm EST) that were not submitted for redemption in connection with the Merger), whether held as separate shares of Common Stock or as part of Public Units, who held such shares between the close of business on May 11, 2021 (the "Record Date") and June 4, 2021 (the "Closing") (the "Class Period"), and their successors in interest, but excluding (i) (a) Defendants; (b) members of the immediate family of any Individual Defendant; (c) any person who was a manager or managing member of any TS Defendant during the Class Period and any members of their immediate family; (d) any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of a TS Defendant; (e) any entity in which any Defendant or any other excluded person or entity has, or had during the Class Period, a controlling interest; and (f) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, estates, successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons or entities; and (ii) (a) the Company; and (b) any person who was an officer or director of the Company during the Class Period and any members of their immediate family. For the avoidance of doubt, the Settlement Class does not include holders of TSIA securities other than Common Stock, including warrants (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS SUPPLEMENTAL CORRECTED SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the claims process and plan of allocation for the proposed settlement in the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") have been modified. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court held the previously noticed hearing concerning the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement and the application by Class Counsel for a Fee and Expense Award and Incentive Awards in connection with the Settlement on March 27, 2025 (the "Fairness Hearing"). At the Fairness Hearing, the Court expressed its opinion that the financial terms of the Settlement were adequate but directed Plaintiffs to provide this Supplemental Corrected Summary Notice explaining the Revised Plan of Allocation and the requirement that Settlement Class members submit a Proof of Claim form in order to maximize their potential recovery. The issuance of this Supplemental Corrected Summary Notice is not an expression by the Court of any findings of fact or any opinion concerning the merits of any claim in the Action, and the Court has not yet decided whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, then payments to eligible Settlement Class Members will be made after any appeals are resolved. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed in accordance with the terms of the Revised Plan of Allocation included in the Supplemental Corrected Notice delivered to stockholders. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Supplemental Corrected Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Supplemental Corrected Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at TSIA Stockholders Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173041, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 866-217-4469, info@LatchStockholderSettlement.com. A copy of the Supplemental Corrected Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.LatchStockholderSettlement.com. Pursuant to the Revised Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Settlement Class Member will be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund subject to the following conditions. 1. A "Recognized Claim" will be calculated for each share of TSIA Class A common stock held by an Eligible Settlement Class Member at the close of the market on June 1, 2021, that was not redeemed in connection with the Merger. For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no Recognized Claim for any share of TSIA Class A common stock redeemed in connection with the closing of the Merger. A Recognized Claim shall have two components: (a) Nominal Damages: Regardless of whether a Proof of Claim and Release is submitted, for each share of TSIA Class A common stock held by an Eligible Settlement Class Member at the close of the market on June 1, 2021, each Eligible Settlement Class Member shall receive nominal damages in the amount of $0.10 per Eligible Share ("Nominal Damages"). (b) Proof of Claim: For Each Eligible Share held by an Eligible Settlement Class Member at the close of the market on June 1, 2021, that was not redeemed in connection with the Merger and is listed on the Proof of Claim and Release and for which adequate documentation is provided to the Settlement Administrator, payments will be calculated as follows: (i) For each Eligible Share sold between the close of the market on June 4, 2021, and the close of the market on November 29, 2024, at a price below $10.00, the Recognized Claim component pursuant to this subsection (b) for each such share shall be the Redemption Price of $10.00 minus the sale price. (ii) If any Eligible Share was sold at a price of $10.00 or greater, the Recognized Claim component pursuant to this subsection (b) for each such share shall be zero. (iii) For each Eligible Share held as of the close of the market on November 29, 2024, the Recognized Claim component pursuant to this subsection (b) for each such share shall be $9.83, calculated as the Redemption Price of $10.00 minus $0.17 (the closing stock price of Latch, Inc. on this date rounded to the nearest cent). To the extent that the calculation of an Eligible Settlement Class Member's Recognized Claim pursuant to this subsection (b) results in a negative number, that number shall be set to zero. The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Eligible Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis based on the relative size of their Recognized Claims. Specifically, a "Distribution Amount" will be calculated for each Eligible Settlement Class Member, which will be the sum of the (1) Nominal Damages, and, as applicable (2) the Eligible Settlement Class Member's Recognized Claim component calculated pursuant to subsection (b) herein divided by the total Recognized Claim components claimed for all Eligible Settlement Class Members pursuant to subsection (b) herein, multiplied by the total amount in the Net Settlement Fund after allocation of all Nominal Damages. If any Eligible Settlement Class Member's Distribution Amount calculates to less than $10.00, it will not be included in the calculation, and no distribution will be made to that Eligible Settlement Class Member; however, they will nevertheless be bound by the Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment of the Court dismissing this Action. 2. If the sum total of Nominal Damages and Recognized Claims of all Eligible Settlement Class Members who are entitled to receive payment out of the Net Settlement Fund is greater than the Net Settlement Fund, each Eligible Settlement Class Member shall receive their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. If the Net Settlement Fund exceeds the sum total amount of the Nominal Damages and Recognized Claims of all Eligible Class Members entitled to receive payment out of the Net Settlement Fund, the excess amount in the Net Settlement Fund shall be distributed pro rata to all Eligible Settlement Class Members entitled to receive payment pursuant to subsection (b) of this section of the Plan. Defendants shall not have a reversionary interest in the Net Settlement Fund. 3. The Supplemental Corrected Notice explains in further detail at paragraphs 18-26 additional provisions of the Revised Plan of Allocation concerning claims eligibility and distribution of funds. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Supplemental Corrected Summary Notice. All questions about this Supplemental Corrected Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Supplemental Corrected Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Latch Stockholders Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173041 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: 866-217-4469 Email: info@LatchStockholderSettlement.com Website: www.LatchStockholderSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Supplemental Corrected Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Kelly L. Tucker Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Email: ktucker@gelaw.com Kaja S. Elmer Fishman Haygood, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Email: kelmer@fishmanhaygood.com Lawrence P. Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. 810 7th Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Email: eagel@bespc.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE: Dated: April 14, 2025 UNITED HEALTH: Class Cert Filing Modified to Jan. 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK DAVIS, SR., MATHEW KOOHNS, and BRETT A. LOCKHART, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly shared, v. UNITED HEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF WASHINGTON, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01220-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order on joint motion to modify scheduling order: Event Deadline Disclosure of Plaintiffs' class certification Jan. 9, 2026 Expert name(s)/CV(s)/brief description of the subject matter of the expected testimony: Class certification motion and service of Jan. 23, 2026 Plaintiffs' class-certification expert report (if any): Disclosure of Defendants' class certification: Feb. 20, 2026 Close of expert discovery: Sept. 25, 2026 Close of all discovery; dispositive motion(s) Oct. 16, 2026 Due: Trial begins: April 5, 2027 UnitedHealth engages in the provision of health care coverage, software, and data consultancy services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiLPvH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile: (206) 223-0246 - and - R. Miles Clark, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 UNITED STATES: A.M.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M.P., G.V.S., C.M.G., Felipe Emmanuel Dzib Cohuo, A.A., B.M.R., K.H.A., A.C.C. on behalf of his minor son, S.C.L., and J.N.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS); and KIKA SCOTT, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, USCIS, Case No. 2:23-cv-13230-BRM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) certifying a class of: "All individuals whose principal petitions for U nonimmigrant status have been on file with USCIS for more than two years and have not received a bona fide determination adjudication pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1184(p)(6) and USCIS Policy Manual volume 3, part C, Chapter 5;" (ii) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing the National Immigrant Justice Center, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, and Winston & Strawn LLP as Class Counsel. Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tbvuIW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kurt Mathas, Esq. Elizabeth Grden, Esq. Thomas Scheper, Esq. Greer Harrison, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 E-mail: KMathas@winston.com EGrden@winston.com TScheper@winston.com GHarrison@winston.com - and - Mark Fleming, Esq. Richard Caldarone, Esq. Jess Hunter-Bowman, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1628 E-mail: mfleming@immigrantjustice.org rcaldarone@immigrantjustice.org jbowman@immigrantjustice.org - and - Meredith Luneack, Esq. MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER 15 South Washington Street, Suite 201 Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Telephone: (734) 239-6863 E-mail: mluneack@michiganimmigrant.org UNITED STATES: Black Federal Workers Appeal Denial of Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that black federal workers who launched a $2.5-billion lawsuit against the federal government are appealing the court's decision to deny it certification. A Federal Court judge last month dismissed a motion to certify the proposed class action lawsuit launched in 2020 by Black public servants who alleged there was systemic racism in the public service. In an "order and reasons" document, Justice Jocelyne Gagne says the case did not meet the bar for a class action and the scope of the plaintiffs' claim "simply makes it unfit for a class procedure." Hugh Scher, lawyer for the plaintiffs, says the court has acknowledged the existence of anti-Black racism in the federal public service but has "turned a blind eye" to it. He says the court and Parliament should address the "system-wide problem" in a way that ensures fairness and equality for Black workers. Nicholas Marcus Thompson, president and CEO of the Black Class Action Secretariat, is calling on all political parties to explain where they stand on the issue. He says the next prime minister should amend the Employment Equity Act, launch a Black mental health program, establish an independent Black equity commissioner position, settle the legal action and provide "long-overdue" compensation and structural change to thousands of workers. "Black workers are the largest racialized group in the federal workforce, yet they remain overrepresented in entry-level positions and underrepresented in leadership," Thompson said. "Some retire after decades of service without ever receiving a single promotion -- even after training the very people who became their managers. "We're not asking for sympathy but we're demanding justice." [GN] UNITED STATES: Hymas Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY HYMAS, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00336-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton Corker entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel per Rule 23. -- The Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is granted, and he shall respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint by May 9, 2025, the Court says. Mr. Hymas fails to meet his burden of establishing that this case is one of those rare cases requiring the appointment of counsel, and the Court therefore declines to channel "precious taxpayer Funds" toward his representation, to which he has no constitutional right. United States Department of State is an executive department of the U.S. federal government responsible for the country's foreign policy and relations. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQQEuw at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: International Students Sue for Revoking Legal Status ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Girgis of The Seattle Times reports that nine more current and former international students filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday, April 23, against the Trump administration for revoking their lawful status in the U.S. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, names the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons. It brings the total number of students and recent graduates in Washington suing the administration for revoking their legal status up to at least 15. All of the legal status terminations, according to the lawsuit filed April 22, are based on the students being in a law enforcement or criminal data system, often as a result of fingerprinting. Some of them had criminal charges dismissed or committed crimes as minor as shoplifting, according to the lawsuit. Several other higher education students in Washington sued the Trump administration, similarly alleging the terminations were arbitrary. Court documents detail how students have learned their status was terminated from a federal database known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS for short. Generally, removal from the database effectively terminates legal status in the U.S. The federal government has argued in court filings that it has authority over the database, and said in a response to a similar case that it's "speculative" whether terminations in SEVIS could lead to detainment or removal proceedings. A SEVIS record is typically terminated if a student dropped below the necessary course load without approval or did unauthorized work. It is usually the university, not the government, that terminates the record. Students can then apply for reinstatement. The Trump administration's onslaught of SEVIS terminations as a tool in its war on immigration has affected as many as 4,800 people. These terminations have come from the federal government rather than the students' institutions, and instead of the government telling universities when it has terminated a student record, university staff are often finding out on their own by checking the database. The students and alumni are filing the class action lawsuit not just on behalf of themselves, but any other person facing similar circumstances throughout the U.S. The plaintiffs in Wednesday's lawsuit are all identified under the pseudonyms "John Roe" or "Jane Roe," as many fear the stigma surrounding alleged criminal misconduct, according to the complaint. They allege the government is violating people's due process rights and asks the court to find that any similar terminations are void. Jay Gairson, an attorney representing the 9 students and alumni, said there are likely other cases not being made public. "Many of those students that have been terminated do not have the financial capability or comfort with the U.S. legal system to stand up and challenge these unlawful actions," Gairson said. In Washington, at least 23 recent graduates and international students at UW have had their status terminated. Students at Washington State University, Central Washington University, and Seattle University have also been affected. Federal law states a student can fall out of legal status if that student is convicted of a crime of violence for which a sentence of more than one year may be imposed -- a condition that does not seem to apply to any of the students currently suing the government. Two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were never charged with a crime. One was acquitted by a jury. Three were charged but have not been convicted. One John Roe, a citizen of South Korea enrolled in a doctoral program at UW, was fingerprinted in relation to a criminal charge in 2024, according to the lawsuit. The charge is not described in the lawsuit, which states a jury returned a unanimous not guilty verdict in April. Four days later, the government terminated his SEVIS record. Another UW student completing his Bachelor of Science degree was fingerprinted in connection with an arrest in 2022 that was later dismissed for lack of evidence, the complaint states. A Seattle Central College student from Bangladesh was fingerprinted in connection with a shoplifting charge that was later dropped. One woman who is completing her studies at a King County high school had an interaction with law enforcement as a minor, but she was never charged with an offense. "Defendants have not performed even a cursory review of the specific facts of Plaintiffs' cases as would be necessary to determine if . . . (it) has any bearing whatsoever on Plaintiffs' legal status," the lawsuit states. Typically, students have a right to notice when their SEVIS record is terminated and are given an opportunity to respond. When a student's record is terminated, they are not able to continue their degree programs, and they can't make other arrangements to remain in the country lawfully. "Every person who is physically present in the United States, whether they're a citizen or an immigrant or a nonimmigrant, is owed due process of law," Gairson said. "Currently, the federal government is not consistently giving people due process, especially foreign nationals that are present in the United States, and the government needs to take a deep hard look at themselves." A federal judge in Tacoma ordered the government to temporarily reinstate a University of Washington student's legal status, blocking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from detaining or deporting him. That same judge, Chief U.S. District Judge David Estudillo, is expected to make rulings in three similar cases. "It does not appear, at least on its face right now, that the government has followed its own regulations," Estudillo said. [GN] UNITED STATES: Pasula Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANIKANTA PASULA, LIKHITH BABU GORRELA, THANUJ KUMAR GUMMADAVELLI, HANGRUI ZHANG, and HAOYANG AN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, BOSTON FIELD OFFICE; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MANCHESTER SUB-FIELD OFFICE; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Case No. 1:25-cv-00156-SE-TSM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting their motion for class certification; -- appointing Attorneys from the ACLU of New Hampshire as Class Counsel; and -- granting such other relief as may be reasonable and just The Proposed Class Plaintiffs move on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated—and for the reasons detailed in their complaint, the memorandum of law and affidavits accompanying this motion, and the Plaintiffs' motion for class wide preliminary injunctive relief and briefing incorporated therein by reference—to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs request an expedited schedule and a ruling by May 7, 2025. In the interest of time, the Plaintiffs request that the Court forego oral argument on this Motion or schedule a remote argument on or before May 5, 2025. The motion seeks expedited or provisional certification of the Regulatory Class for the claim in Count 1 of the Class Action Complaint, which consists of the following: "All current or future students at (and Optional Practical Training participants affiliated with) any educational institutions (including colleges and universities) in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico who had their F-1 student status terminated and had their SEVIS immigration record correspondingly terminated by Defendants on or after March 1, 2025 where Defendants' student status termination was neither (i) based on the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. section 214.1(d), (ii) because the student failed to maintain student status based on the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. section 214.1(e)-(g), nor (iii) because the student failed to make normal progress toward completing a course of study under 8 C.F.R section 214.2(f)(5)(i). This class excludes any current student or Optional Practical Training participant who otherwise satisfies this class definition but who has a pending lawsuit challenging the termination of student status or a SEVIS record." United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEbHYl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald L. Abramson, Esq. SHAHEEN & GORDON P.A. 180 Bridge Street Manchester, NH 03104 Telephone: (603) 792-8472 E-mail: rabramson@shaheengordon.com - and - Carol Garvan, Esq. Zachary L. Heiden, Esq. Heather Zimmerman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE FOUNDATION Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 619-8687 E-mail: cgarvan@aclumaine.org heiden@aclumaine.org hzimmerman@aclumaine.org - and - Lynette Labinger, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF RHODE ISLAND 128 Dorrance Street, Box 710 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 465-9565 E-mail: LL@labingerlaw.com - and - Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry Klementowicz, Esq. SangYeob Kim, Esq. Chelsea Eddy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 227-6678 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org sangyeob@aclu-nh.org chelsea@aclu-nh.org - and - Fermín L. Arraiza-Navas, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION PUERTO RICO CHAPTER Union Plaza, Suite 1105 416 Avenida Ponce de Leon San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787) 753-9493 E-mail: farraiza@aclu.org UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.V.D., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs are seeking a limited and measured remedy—one Defendants have conceded in other proceedings is the minimum that comports with due process. The Plaintiffs are simply asking to be told they are going to be deported to a new country before they are taken to such a country, and be given an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death. This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States, and for this reason, the motion for class certification is granted, and the motion for preliminary injunction is granted in part. The Plaintiffs allege that on March 10, 2025, ICE instructed D.V.D.'s attorney that D.V.D. needed to report for an in-person check-in on March 28, 2025, and that the ICE officer later explained that ICE was requiring all people to report in person and more frequently on a case-by-case basis. If deported to a third country, D.V.D. alleges that he is at risk of persecution due to his mental health conditions or possible imprisonment in certain countries. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class, which they define as: "All individuals who have a final removal order issued in proceedings under Section 240, 241(a)(5), or 238(b) of the INA (including withholding-only proceedings) whom DHS has deported or will deport on or after Feb. 18, 2025, to a country (a) not previously designated as the country or alternative country of removal, and (b) not identified in writing in the prior proceedings as a country to which the individual would be removed." United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qE675n at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Smoke Suit Seeks to Certify Retired Army Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE A. SMOKE and JENNIFER M. MCINTYRE, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. DANIEL DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of the Army, Case No. 1:24-cv-02919-ACR (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their action as a class action and appointing class counsel. The Plaintiffs are also filing, contemporaneously with this motion, a revised memorandum of law in support of this motion for class certification, which will demonstrate in greater detail the grounds for class certification, and a proposed order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant, acting through the United States Army Physical Evaluation Board ("PEB"), has denied the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated the "combat-related" finding to which they are entitled due to Defendant's continued refusal to recognize burn pits as an instrumentality of war ("IOW"). The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of persons who: a. Were medically retired from the United States Army for an unfitting condition covered under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics ("PACT") Act's burn pit presumptions ("PACT Act Conditions"); b. Served in locations and during timeframes defined in 38 U.S.C. section 1119; and c. Received a final medical retirement decision dated after Aug. 10, 2022 that found their unfitting PACT Act Condition was not "combat-related" under 26 U.S.C. section 104 despite their exposure to military burn pits and the PACT Act presumption that such exposure caused them to incur their unfitting disability.[CC] A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QiBVoh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Hay, Esq. Susan K. Whaley, Esq. Emily M. Wexler, Esq. Timothy E. Cunningham, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 E-mail: dhay@sidley.com susan.whaley@sidley.com ewexler@sidley.com tim.cunningham@sidley.com - and - Rochelle Bobroff, Esq. Esther Leibfarth, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1100 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (202) 621-5709 Facsimile: (202) 223-9199 E-mail: rochelle@nvlsp.org esther@nvlsp.org UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Hear Class Suit Over Disability Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Kime, writing for military.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a case Monday, April 21, from medically retired service members who say the Defense Department's misinterpretation of a law prevented them from receiving the maximum amount of disability compensation for their combat-related injuries. The class-action suit, representing roughly 9,000 service members, challenges a rule that requires veterans to file compensation claims within six years of receiving a VA disability ratings decision, saying the Defense Department has wrongfully applied it to combat-related special compensation. The DoD says the time limit applies to decisions to award retroactive disability pay for combat injuries to medical retirees, but attorneys for the lead plaintiff, retired Cpl. Simon Soto, say the law isn't relevant to those claims. "Whether thousands of combat veterans now and into the future lose all or part of the special compensation they earned through service to and sacrifice for our nation is an exceptionally important question that merits this court's review," wrote Soto's attorneys in their petition to the Supreme Court filed last September. Soto, a retired Marine Corps mortuary affairs specialist, argued that he should have received several more years of retroactive combat-related special compensation, or CRSC, but did not because the Navy limited it to six years, citing what is known as the Barring Act that limits claims to those filed within six years after they accrue. Soto enlisted in the Marine Corps in August 2000 and served two tours in Iraq in mortuary affairs, searching, recovering and caring for the remains of service members and others killed in combat. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his job and medically retired in 2006. In 2009, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded Soto disability compensation for his service-connected mental health condition, and in 2016 he applied for combat-related special compensation -- pay that is awarded to some service members who retire as a result of a service-connected medical condition. When the Navy awarded Soto CRSC, it backdated the pay to July 2010 based on the interpretation of the law. The Barring Act requires veterans to file compensation claims within six years of receiving a VA disability ratings decision. After the six-year limit expires, veterans qualify only for up to six years' worth of payments that are due to them. Attorneys for the government say Congress established the six-year deadline for the submission of claims and argue that combat-related special compensation falls under it. In addition, they wrote in court documents, "Agencies are not permitted to waive or extend this six-year statute of limitations except where a statute expressly authorizes." But Soto's attorneys say the law does not apply in this case and specifically addresses VA disability compensation. Combat-related special compensation is provided by the Defense Department to replace, in part, any military retirement pay that may be withheld due to receipt of VA compensation. The attorneys argue that Soto should have received back payments to January 2008 when Congress extended the combat compensation to medically retired members who served fewer than 20 years. Soto first filed the case in 2017. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of Soto, ordering the government to pay all eligible former service members additional retroactive CRSC of $10,000 or less. The Federal Circuit Court overturned the lower court's decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take the case. A ruling in favor of Soto could provide additional tax-free retroactive payments to an estimated 9,000 medically retired soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, according to his attorneys. Soto is being represented pro bono by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Sidley Austin LLP. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Installs Malicious Software, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Ann W. Latner, JD, writing for HMP Global, reports that in a shocking case, the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that one of its pharmacists installed malicious software on hundreds of coworkers' laptops and workstations over the course of a decade to spy on their personal lives. The Lawsuit The complaint and demand for a jury trial was filed by attorneys representing 6 Jane Doe plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the class of similarly situated individuals. The complaint alleges that "for nearly a decade, a single pharmacist named Matthew Bathula installed spyware on at least 400 computers in clinics, treatment rooms, labs and a variety of other locations at one of the nation's premier teaching hospitals. Bathula used this spyware to remotely access webcams to record videos of young doctors and medical residents pumping breastmilk in closed treatment rooms, and to use home security cameras to record women breastfeeding their babies, interacting with young children, and having sex with their husbands in the privacy of their homes. He accessed his coworkers' personal photo libraries and captured, downloaded, and retained their intimate photographs and personally-identifiable information." Pharmacist Bathula allegedly installed keyloggers on over 400 UMMC computers over the course of a decade. These keyloggers reportedly transmitted usernames and passwords for his coworkers' personal accounts, including bank accounts, dating apps, home surveillance systems, Google Drive, and iCloud accounts. "Because Bathula was able to learn username and password patters," noted the complaints, "he was able to gain access to UMMC computer users' personal accounts even though the user had never specifically logged into that account on a UMMC computer." The complaint asserts that UMMC learned of the spyware, and, on October 1, 2024, sent an email blast to employees alerting them to a cyberattack which may have compromised their data. UMMC promised to contact "potentially impacted team members and patients" directly, but the plaintiffs in this case claim that the only entity to contact them was the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is investigating the case. Plaintiffs claim that UMMC should have known this was happening, should have had industry-standard protections in place on computers, and should not have given Bathula unhampered access to the center's computers. Plaintiffs also claim that the medical center has replaced the compromised computers, removed, and replaced cameras in the building, but has not notified patients who may have been surveilled and/or recorded. Plaintiffs are charging UMMC with negligence, negligent supervision and retention of Bathula, negligent security, and intrusion on plaintiffs' seclusion—invasion of privacy. They are seeking damages, including compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and litigation expenses/attorney fees. UMMC has issued a statement in response to allegations against Bathula. In it, UMMC states "the actions alleged in this matter run counter to every single value we stand for. At every level of our organization, we are deeply disappointed and angered at the actions of the individual at the center of this criminal investigation." The Takeaway This is a big case which may have some major repercussions for medical centers that fail to adequately protect the privacy of employees and patients. [GN] UPPER BLUE SANITATION: Faces Homeowners' Suit Over Arbitrary Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Spencer of Summit Daily reports that a Summit County homeowner has filed a class action lawsuit against the Upper Blue Sanitation District claiming that the district is charging those who short-term rent their single-family homes excessive and arbitrary fees. Todd Ruelle, who short-term rents a single-family home within the sanitation district, filed the civil lawsuit in Summit County court on April 18, according to court documents. The lawsuit claims that the district violates a Colorado law requiring wastewater services not to charge unreasonable fees and seeks monetary restitution for the homeowners affected, court documents state. "We'd like to see short-term rentals treated fairly for what they actually discharge," Alex Dorotik, an attorney representing Ruelle in the case, said. "They shouldn't get a break, but they also shouldn't be carrying more than their fair share of the costs of the system." The Upper Blue Sanitation District declined to comment on the litigation. The lawsuit asks a judge to treat all single-family homeowners who short-term rent in the sanitation district as a class, claiming that individualized litigation could lead to contradictory judgements and overburden the court system. In total, single-family homeowners who short-term rent "have been made to pay millions of dollars illegally" to the sanitation district, according to the complaint Dorotik filed in the case. The complaint states that the Upper Blue Sanitation District sets fees for services based not on actual wastewater discharge, but on an estimate of how many persons occupy each dwelling it serves. For example, a three-bedroom, two-bathroom, single-family home is estimated to be occupied by 3.5 people, the document states. But in 2019, the district began treating short-term rentals differently than other single-family homes, instead using a formula based on the maximum allowed occupants, according to the complaint. For a three-bedroom, two-bathroom home that is short-term rented, the maximum allowed occupants is 10 people, resulting in fees 287% higher than the same single-family home if it were not short-term rented, the document states. It claims the fees are "based on the idea that (short-term rentals) are occupied with the maximum possible number of people 365 days out of the year." "There is simply no evidence that (short-term rentals) are occupied with the maximum capacity 365 days out of the year and such an assertion is preposterous," the complaint states. "And, the fees currently charged are not in any way reasonably related to the expenses of providing the service, as required by law." But a short-term rental technical memorandum published by the Upper Blue Sanitation District last year states that the district designs, constructs, operates and maintains its facilities for "peak daily flow and loadings" as opposed to an "average weekly, monthly or annual loading." Short-term rentals in Blue River, Breckenridge and Summit County "allow for an increased overnight short-term housing population compared to the original property allocation," the memorandum states. Therefore, the formula the district uses to convert single-family residences for short term rentals "tended to better reflect the peak daily loading impact of the short-term rental single-family residences," according to the memorandum. The complaint filed in the lawsuit further claims that even when the Upper Blue Sanitation District's one-day flow rates were at their highest in 2024, they were nowhere near the district's capacity of 6.68 million gallons per day. The highest one-day flow in the system in 2024 was 2.86 million gallons, or 43% of total capacity, but Colorado statutes and regulations only require a district to undertake planning for expanding collection and treatment capability upon reaching 80% capacity, according to the complaint. Given the building constraints in Summit County, "it's hard to conceive of a need to ever expand the system unless the entire housing and density scheme of Breckenridge were to change completely," Dorotik said. Ruelle is also president of Summit County Resort Homes, Inc., which represents over 100 homeowners suing the Summit Board of County Commissioners in the Summit County courts. That lawsuit claims the county's short-term rental regulations violate the state Constitution and state law. [GN] US CLAIMS: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that third-party litigation financing have become big business across the country, much to the chagrin of businesses and insurance companies that have faced multi-million lawsuit verdicts. But now one Florida-based litigation funding firm, which has loaned money to plaintiffs in a range of personal injury suits, including workers' compensation and even dog bite claims, faces a potential class-action lawsuit of its own over a January data breach. US Claims Capital, doing business as US Claims and headquartered in Boca Raton, failed to secure plaintiffs' personal information and failed to implement robust computer security measures, leading to a cyberattack, the complaint alleges. "The exposure of one's private information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be un-rung," reads the April 17 complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Miami. "Before this data breach, plaintiff's and the class's private information was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure." The lead plaintiff is Timothy Vactor, a Kansas resident who had for years closely guarded his personal data, the court document notes. The suit asks the court to certify the class action as representing many other people who did business with US Claims, and asks for compensatory and punitive damages, along with attorney fees and other cost reimbursement. US Claims has not yet filed an answer to the complaint. The firm's website notes that it funds lawsuits over animal bites, animal injuries and other injuries, and contends that it offers a better deal to plaintiffs by charging less than competing litigation funding firms. "Defendant is a national litigation funding company that loans plaintiffs in personal injury, workers' compensation, qui tam, medical malpractice, or other types of cases money before or after their cases settle," the suit reads. The injury suit that US Claims reportedly financed for Vactor, the lead plaintiff, was not explained in the complaint. Vactor and other plaintiffs funded by the firm were notified through an April 11 letter from US Claims, explaining the Jan. 7 cyberattack. The firm's own investigation "revealed that certain information related to you may have been acquired by an unauthorized individual as part of the event," the letter said. US Claims provided victims with identity theft protection, cyber monitoring and an insurance policy in case of financial losses, as well as help in resolving issues. But since the letter, Vactor and other class members have had to spend time and money monitoring their credit reports, dealing with an increase in spam email, texts and phone calls, the complaint argues. [GN] VAIL RESORTS: May Face $100-Mil. Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Wood, writing Unofficial Networks, reports that a yearslong battle over workers' compensation could soon become a much bigger problem for Vail Resorts. Jenna Greene of Thomas Reuters reports that a motion to dismiss a California case that was filed last Friday, April 18, could end one state lawsuit against Vail Resorts and reignite a federal lawsuit against the ski resort conglomerate. For years, Vail Resorts has tried to resolve a class action lawsuit that started in October 2020 from Heavenly security guard Adam Heggen over worker compensation in California's state judicial system. In this case, the California Court of Appeals struck down an agreed-upon $13.1 million settlement for Heggen and other associated parties (around $4.37 million of which would've gone to the lawyers that represented the plaintiffs). This settlement would have allowed Vail Resorts to resolve the complaints from California and other properties across the country over worker compensation. Which brings us to the federal case that was filed in December 2020, around eight weeks following the California case. Attorney Edward Dietrich's case has been stuck in limbo, as the state case has taken priority because of legal maneuvering by both the plaintiffs and defendants to settle the California case. This lawsuit features 103,000 class members across 16 states, with employees from various resorts alleging that they weren't paid for things like overtime, unused break time, and cleaning their uniforms. One of his arguments for appealing was that the $13.1 million settlement was too low for compensation, as he's seeking $100 million in damages from Vail Resorts. The settlement meant that it would have resulted in the end of Dietrich's federal case, as it would've allowed those outside of California to join in on the deal. Dietrich appealed the settlement, which was previously approved by the El Dorado Superior Court. This agreement was nullified, partially due to Vail Resorts' lack of jurisdiction in California, as it's a company that's based in Colorado. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case, resulting in its return to El Dorado Superior Court. Now, intervening lawyer Edward Dietrich is trying to get it tossed out to restart the federal case. Vail Resorts has denied the accusations by the plaintiffs in various court documents. It has not commented publicly on the case, as they avoid commenting on active litigation. The next hearing is scheduled in El Dorado Superior Court for June 6, which will entail further deliberation on the motion to dismiss. [GN] VALLEY FINANCIAL: Mitchell Jr. Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MITCHELL, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00052-TJC (D. Mont., April 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to identify and explain its overdraft program and prevents consumers from affirmatively consenting, or opting in, to the program. Consumers are left with no understanding as to how or when Defendant determines overdrafts in its Opt-In Form. Valley Financial Credit Union is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers. [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 Email: jfitz@towefitzlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: 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 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AK 72201 Email: chris@jefirm.com VANILLA CHIP: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Blind Customer's Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In a case captioned as Jacqueline Fernandez v. Vanilla Chip, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05639 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochun of the United States District Court Southern District of New York denied the defendant's request to dismiss the complaint. In ruling on the matter, the Court examined whether Title III of the ADA applies to websites that sell goods or services, even if the business lacks a physical storefront. TruHeight Vitamins, whose website, www.truheightvitamins.com, allegedly denies access to visually impaired users due to barriers like missing alt-text and broken links. The defendant wanted the case tossed for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court assessed conflicting circuit court precedents, statutory language, and legislative intent, concluding that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act covers online-only businesses as public accommodations. Judge Rochun noted the question of whether websites are subject to Title III remains unresolved by the Supreme Court, resulting in a circuit split. The Ninth Circuit, in Robles v. Domino's Pizza LLC, held that websites must comply with the ADA if they have a "nexus" to physical locations. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case in 2019. The Eleventh Circuit initially adopted the nexus standard in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., but later vacated the opinion as moot in 2021. The Second Circuit has not directly ruled on websites but in 1999 addressed a related issue in Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., stating: "Title III's mandate . . . suggests . . . more than mere physical access. [It] prohibits [entities] from refusing to sell [goods] to disabled persons by reason of discrimination." This suggests a broader interpretation of Title III beyond physical spaces. Within the Second Circuit, district courts are divided on whether Title III applies to websites without physical ties. The majority view, following Pallozzi, holds that websites are public accommodations if they sell goods or services. For example, Romero v. 88 Acres Foods found websites to be public accommodations for selling goods. Del-Orden v. Bonobos interpreted the ADA's "other sales establishment" language (Sec. 12181(7)(E)) to include online marketplaces. Andrews v. Blick Art noted Congress' intent to cover evolving technologies. Conversely, the minority view limits Pallozzi to goods tied to physical locations. Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, stated: "Pallozzi is not a case about whether a business without physical premises qualifies [as a public accommodation]." Similarly, Winegard v. Newsday argued that a "physical place is a condition precedent." Judge Rochun adopted the majority view, relying on statutory interpretation. Title III prohibits discrimination in the "full and equal enjoyment of goods/services" of a public accommodation. The statute lists 12 categories, including "sales establishments" and "service establishments." The phrase "other sales or rental establishment" is distinct from "store," according to Judge Rochun, citing Fernandez v. Katie May LLC, indicating Congress intended to cover all sellers, physical or not. Excluding online businesses would lead to absurd outcomes, as noted in Romero: "People with disabilities are protected if they shop in-store at Whole Foods, but not if they shop online at Whole Foods." Judge Rochun also pointed to Fed'n of the Blind v. Scribd Inc., which held "[I]t would make little sense if a customer who bought insurance from someone selling policies door to door was not covered but someone buying the same policy in the parent company's office was covered." Judge Rochun maintains the ADA aims to eliminate discrimination and integrate disabled individuals into the "economic and social mainstream," citing PGA Tour v. Martin. Legislative history supports adapting the ADA to technology, with Congress stating "The types of accommodation . . . should keep pace with rapidly changing technology" and that the categories of public accommodations are to be "construed liberally." This broad remedial purpose supports applying Title III to websites, ensuring equal access in modern commerce. Judge Rochun concluded that TruHeight Vitamins' website is subject to Title III and qualifies as an "other sales establishment" under Sec. 12181(7)(E) because it sells vitamins directly to the public. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oh8WwJ from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Following the Court's rejection of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, the Defendant has filed its answer to the complaint. Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle this action, if they have not already done so pursuant to the Court's July 29, 2024 Order, and submit a joint letter no later than May 9, 2025, informing the Court whether the parties have settled. If the parties do not reach a settlement, the parties must in the joint letter request that the Court (1) refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference (and indicate a preference between the two options), or (2) proceed with an initial status conference. VESYNC CORP: Chen Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN and MINDY AIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that Defendant designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney's Eyes Only. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons' standard applies at class certification. The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued in the case, and take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties' confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. The Plaintiffs request that the Court seal the portions of the Plaintiffs' experts' opening reports in support of the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification. Vesync is a provider of diversified smart home products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TIAZuk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, 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 lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com VISION OF HOPE: Calvache Seeks Conditional Status of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIE CALVACHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC. AND FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00053-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying of collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and authorizing notice to be sent to all similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, a church parent organization and its subsidiary company engaged in operating a residential counseling facility, failed to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated the minimum wage and overtime, arising out of the "internship" program at Vision of Hope Ministries, Inc. The proposed class consists of: "current and former Vision of Hope "interns" of the Defendants who, in the three years immediately preceding this motion, furnished services to the Defendants but who were not paid minimum wage and overtime as required by the FLSA." Vision of Hope Ministries is the mission support organization in the United States for Evangelical Free Church planting in northern Haiti. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NxM0iF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Ramsland, Esq. RAMSLAND LAW LLC 38 W. Main Street, Suite 124 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (765) 267-1240 E-mail: jason@rams.land WELLS FARGO: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 24 ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Himstreet et al. v. Charles W. Scharf et al, Case No. CGC-22-599223 (Cal. Super. Ct). TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2025 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("CURRENT WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, a hearing will be held on July 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jeffrey S. Ross, Superior Court Judge, at the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, California 94102, for the purpose of determining whether the proposed settlement of the above-captioned derivative action (the "Derivative Action"), with a cash payment of $100 million and certain corporate governance reforms, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether a judgment dismissing the Defendants (as identified in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") from the Derivative Action with prejudice should be entered. As part of the hearing the Court will consider an application by Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Derivative Action for an award of attorneys' fees of $33,333,333 (thirty-three million, three-hundred-thirty-three thousand, three-hundred-thirty-three dollars) (to be paid in Wells Fargo common stock) and Service Awards for Plaintiffs to be paid from Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees not to exceed $10,000 for each Plaintiff. Because this is a shareholder derivative action brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Current Wells Fargo Shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this action. The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which Is subject to Court approval, incudes Monetary Consideration of $100 million. Wells Fargo also agrees and acknowledges that facts alleged in the Derivative Action are credited with causing certain corporate governance changes undertaken by Wells Fargo during the Pendency of the Derivative Action (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") (see Exhibit C to the Stipulation), which include improvement to Wells Fargo's risk structure, programs, policies, and procedures, additional training for employees, expanded and enhanced oversight of risk management by Wells Fargo's Board of Directors, and changes to the composition of Wells Fargo's Board of Directors. IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGO COMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and has been published on Wells Fargo's company website at https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/investor-relations/ under "Shareholder Information". Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may be made to a representative of Plaintiffs' Counsel. Should you have any other questions regarding the proposed settlement of the Derivative Action, please contact Plaintiffs' Counsel: George C. Aguilar Michael J. Nicoud Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Randall J. Baron Benny C. Goodman III Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Current Wells Fargo Shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any action. If you wish to appear at the Settlement Hearing and object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee and Expense Amount, the Service Awards, and/or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal (as defined in the Stipulation) you must file with the Court and serve on the attorneys listed below by no later than July 17, 2025 (five (5) court days prior to the Settlement Hearing) a notice of intention to appear that includes (i) your full name, address, and telephone number, and if represented, by counsel the name and address of your counsel; (ii) appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the Record Date; (iii) whether you or your counsel intends to appear in person or via Zoom; and (iv) your signature. Additionally, any objection, pleading, evidence, or briefing that you wish to have considered by the Court at the Settlement Hearing must be filed with the Court and served on the attorneys listed below no later than June 25, 2025 (twenty (20) court days prior to the Settlement Hearing). You may not ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All notices of intention to appear and written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify the case name and number (Timothy Himstreet, et al. v. Charles W. Scharf, et al, Case No. CGC-22-599223 (Cal. Super. Ct.)) and can be filed with the Court either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102, or by filing them in person at the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. These writings can be served by File & ServeXpress, by hand, by first-class mail, or by express service and must be served upon the following attorneys: George C. Aguilar Michael J. Nicoud Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA92122 Christopher M. Viapiano Oliver W. Engebretson-Schooley . Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1700 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Randall J. Baron Benny C. Goodman III Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Settle Mortgage Forbearances Suit for $185MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pankaj Kumar, writing for OTE News, reports that Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $185 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the bank of placing customers' mortgages into forbearance without their consent during the COVID-19 pandemic. The settlement aims to compensate individuals who were affected by this practice between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. What Happened? Class Action Settlement During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many homeowners faced financial difficulties. The U.S. government introduced the CARES Act, which allowed homeowners to request a temporary pause on their mortgage payments, known as forbearance. However, Wells Fargo allegedly placed some customers into forbearance without their explicit request or informed consent. This action led to unintended consequences, such as negative impacts on credit scores and difficulties in securing new loans.Lawyer Monthlywellsfargocovidforbearancelitigation.com In an emailed statement to marketplace.org, a Wells Fargo spokesperson said, "During the early stages of the pandemic, Wells Fargo worked hard to help customers who expressed concern about financial hardship and their ability to make their next mortgage payments. . . We support this settlement because we believe it is in the best interests of our customers." The lawsuit claimed that Wells Fargo's actions violated consumer protection laws by not obtaining proper consent before initiating forbearance. While the bank did not admit to any wrongdoing, it agreed to the settlement to resolve the claims and avoid prolonged litigation. WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR CASH? The settlement covers individuals who meet the following criteria:Top Class Actions -- Mortgage Serviced by Wells Fargo: Your mortgage must have been serviced by Wells Fargo. -- Placed into Forbearance Without Consent: Your mortgage was placed into forbearance between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, without your explicit request or informed consent. -- Not Involved in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: You were not a debtor or co-borrower in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case at the time your mortgage was placed into forbearance. If you meet these criteria, you may be eligible for compensation under the settlement. What Compensation Is Available? The $185 million settlement fund will be distributed as follows: -- Automatic Payments: The first $69 million will be equally distributed among eligible class members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement. -- Co-Borrower Payments: Each co-borrower on a mortgage that received forbearance will receive an additional $83.33. -- Supplemental Payments: Class members who experienced additional harm, such as delayed refinancing, increased borrowing costs, or denied credit applications, can file a claim for further compensation. Payments will be made automatically to eligible individuals who do not opt out of the settlement. Those who wish to seek additional compensation must submit a valid claim form by the specified deadline. How to File a Claim? If you believe you are eligible for additional compensation, you can file a claim by: 1. Visiting the Official Settlement Website: Go to the Wells Fargo COVID Forbearance Settlement Litigation website. 2. Completing the Claim Form: Fill out the online claim form with accurate information. 3. Submitting Supporting Documentation: Provide any necessary documents that support your claim, such as denial letters or refinancing records. 4. Submitting the Claim: Submit the completed claim form and documentation by the deadline. Ensure that all information is accurate and submitted on time to avoid delays in processing your claim. Additional Information -- No Action Required for Automatic Payments: If you are eligible for automatic payments and do not opt out, you do not need to take any further action. -- Opting Out: If you choose to exclude yourself from the settlement, you will not receive any benefits but will retain the right to file your lawsuit. -- Legal Representation: The settlement is being administered by the Settlement Administrator, and class counsel are overseeing the process to ensure fairness. Conclusion The Wells Fargo $185 million settlement provides an opportunity for individuals who were affected by unauthorized mortgage forbearances during the COVID-19 pandemic to receive compensation. If you believe you are eligible, it's important to review the settlement details and take the necessary steps to file a claim by the specified deadlines. For more information and to submit a claim, visit the official settlement website. [GN] WHITE CAP: Lobdell Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LOBDELL, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. WHITE CAP, L.P., a Florida Limited Partnership (f/k/a HD Supply Construction Supply, Ltd.); WHITE CAP SUPPLY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and, WHITE CAP MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting class certification; -- Compelling White Cap to identify all class members by providing names, last known addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the Order; -- Compelling notice of this class action to be sent to all class members apprising them of this lawsuit; and -- Compelling White Cap to post notice of this class action in all of White Cap's facilities and corporate offices to ensure all class members are sufficiently apprised of this case. White Cap specializes in bentonite waterproofing, masonry, concrete, and access doors and panels. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dOciUM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shereef H. Akeel, Esq. Adam S. Akeel, Esq. Samuel R. Simkins, Esq. Emad R. Hamadeh, Esq. AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC 888 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 350 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 269-9595 E-mail: shereef@akeelvalentine.com adam@akeelvalentine.com sam@akeelvalentine.com emad@akeelvalentine.com The Defendants are represented by: Kimberly A. Ross, Esq. Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. FORDHARRISON, LLP 180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 960-6111 E-mail: kross@fordharrison.com Nandrews@fordharrison.com ZENAS BIOPHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 16 ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zenas BioPharma, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZBIO) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Zenas BioPharma's September 2024 initial public offering. Zenas BioPharma purports to be a "clinical stage global biopharmaceutical company committed to being a leader in the development and commercialization of transformative immunology-based therapies for patients in need." The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Zenas BioPharma, Inc. (ZBIO) Misled Investors in Connection with its IPO According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that in connection with its IPO, Zenas BioPharma materially overstated the amount of time that it would be able to fund its operations using existing cash and expected net proceeds from the IPO. On November 12, 2024, the Company filed with the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024, stating that the Company could fund its operations for the following twelve months, not twenty-four, as it had stated in the Registration Statement. Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from Zenas BioPharma's Registration Statement, Zenas BioPharma's share price has fallen substantially below its IPO price. As of the close of trading on April 15, 2025, the closing price of Zenas BioPharma stock was $8.72, 48.7% below the IPO price. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Zenas BioPharma, Inc. Sharholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by June 16, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Zenas BioPharma, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] ZOOM VIDEO: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Consol. CA. No.: 1:20-CV-00797-GBW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ("ZOOM" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF JANUARY 14,2025: THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND. PROPOSED SETTLEIMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A ZOOM STOCKHOLDER, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS . IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE "RELEASED CLAIMS" IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to the above-captioned stockholder derivative action (the "Derivative Action"), have reached an agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and for the benefit of Zoom. The terms of the settlement are set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement dated January 14, 2025 (the "Stipulation"). This notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. A link to the text of the Stipulation and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Action may be found on the Investor Relations page of Zoom's website at https://investors.zoom.us. Under the terms of the Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, Zoom will adopt and implement corporate governance reforms, which all parties agree confer substantial benefits upon Zoom and its stockholders. Zoom's board of directors, including each of its independent, non-defendant directors in a good faith exercise of business judgment determined that: (i) the Settlement confers a substantial benefit upon Zoom and its stockholders; and (ji) the Settlement, and each of its terms, is in all respects fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of Zoom and its stockholders. In consideration of the substantial benefits conferred upon Zoom by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel's efforts, Defendants and/or their insurers shall pay Plaintiff's Counsel's attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of $1,350,000, subject to Court approval. A hearing will be held on July 1, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Gregory B. Williams, at the U.S. District-Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 North King Street, Courtroom 6B, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court) (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement. The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may change without further written notice to Zoom stockholders, or the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Zoom stockholders to appear at the hearing by telephone or video, without further written notice to Zoom stockholders. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Zoom stockholders must or may participate by telephone of video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the "Investor Relations" section of Zoom's website, https://investors.zoom.us, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any Zoom stockholder has a right, but is not required, to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, providing that he, she, or it is a stockholder of record or beneficial owner of Zoom common stock and was a stockholder of record or beneficial owner of Zoom common stock as of January 14, 2025. Any Zoom stockholder who satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such stockholder's own choosing and at such stockholder's own expense, or may appear on their own. However, you shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than June 17, 2025, you have filed with the Court a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number In re Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. CA. No. 1:20-CV-00797-GBW; 3. Proof of being a Zoom stockholder currently and as of January 14, 2025; : 4. The date(s) you acquired your Zoom shares; 5. A statement of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the written objection described above with the Court on or before June 17, 2025. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, North King St., Unit 18, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3570 and served upon each of the following Settling Parties' counsel: Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiff: ROBBINS LLP Kevin A. Seely 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON Thomas J. McKenna 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Timothy Brown 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net Counsel for Defendants: COOLEY LLP Ryan Blair 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5535 E-mail: rblaircooley.com YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN JUNE 17, 2025. Only stockholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise.' If you fail to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above you shall be deemed to have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection(s). Inquiries may be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Robbins LLP, Kevin A. Seely, kseely@robbinsilp.com, Telephone: (619) 525-3990. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR ZOOM REGARDING THIS NOTICE DATED: April 16, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ZYNEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Zynex, Inc. ("Zynex, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZYXI) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Zynex, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 13, 2023 and March 11, 2025. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/zynex-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=144892&wire=4 ZYXI investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) Zynex shipped products, including electrodes, in excess of need; (2) as a result of this practice, the Company inflated its revenue; (3) the Company's practice of filing false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, including the U.S. military health insurance program, Tricare; (4) as a result, it was reasonably likely that Zynex would face adverse consequences, including removal from insurer networks and penalties from the federal government; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Zynex, Inc. during the relevant time frame, you have until May 19, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] ********* 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 ***