250507.mbx

250507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 91 Headlines 1248 HOLDINGS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Tobler 1A AUTO: Dyer Balks at Misused Employee Stock Ownership Plan Income 3M COMPANY: Liable to Drinking Water Contamination, Salzman Says 44 STREET: Class & Collective Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod AES CORP: Court Dismisses Stockholder Challenge to Advance Notice ALATRADE FOODS: Bouyer Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Court Affirms Dismissal of Silver TCPA Lawsuit AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Allowed Leave to File Over-Long Reply AMAZON.COM INC: Must Oppose Frame-Wilson Class Cert Bid by June 6 APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Seeks to Modify Dec. 4 Scheduling Order BARRICK GOLD: Court Stays Allen FLSA Class Action Until May 22 BILL NELSON: Barth Suit Seeks Class Certification BILL WISE'S: Parties Must Confer on Scope of Class Certification BINANCE HOLDINGS: Court Transfers Martin Suit to S.D. Fla. BIRDIES IN THE PINES: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says BIZ ADVANCE: Faces Cardenas TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls BLISS RESTAURANT: Guilmette Seeks Tipped Workers' Hourly Wages BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Clark Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code BRADLEY, IL: Neufeld Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL BROWN PAINDIRIS: Faces Eccleston Class Action in D. Conn. BUFFALO, NY: Black Love Class Certification Bid Granted in Part CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Disclose Data Without Consent, Xavier Says CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Bid to Appoint Counsel in Justus Suit CALIFORNIA: Report Recommending Dismissal of Justus Suit Vacated CARELON BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Provider Directories CEREBRAL INC: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert by June 16 CHOBANI LLC: Yugort Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says CLEMENTS CHIROPRACTIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goding Alleges CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, West Says COLE HAAN: Cortes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL COLOR IMAGE: Sulici Sues Over Influencers' Deceptive Endorsements CONDUENT INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Hafoka Says COSTAR REALTY: Removes Banks Suit from State Court to E.D. Mo. CREDIT ONE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Jeffries Lawsuit DAMERON HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Donatelli Alleges DANIEL BEERS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 29 DAVID YURMAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges DIAMONDROCK TIMES: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DK COSMETICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says DUNKIN DONUTS: N.D. California Tosses Garland's 1st Amended Suit ELIGO ENERGY: Motion to Substitute Class Representative Granted ENDUE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Echols Says ENERCO GROUP: Purdy Sues Over Sale of Defective Air Propane Heaters FCA US: Court Amends Scheduling Order in D'Angelo Suit FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Howard Class Suit FREEDOM TEAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alt Suit Claims FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Dalton Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website GANNETT CO: Consolidated Class Action in Tracking Suit Due May 12 GARDA CL ATLANTIC: Court Recommends Excluding Wage Claims in Tanza GAS EXPRESS: Consolidated Complaint Filing in Smith Due June 5 GAS EXPRESS: Filing of Consolidated Complaint Due June 5 GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended in Kaplan Suit GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Seeks OK of Voluntary Case Dismissal GLOBAL PLASMA: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Fishlock GOODRX INC: Weston Pillbox Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOOGLE INC: Court Strikes Plaintiffs' Failsafe Class Definition GRETCHEN WHITMER: Court Enters Final Judgment in SORA Lawsuit GROCERY DELIVERY: Hague Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge HEALTHCARE REVENUE: More Time for Arbitration Sur-Response Sought HENKEL CORP: Must Show Cause Why Garcia Suit Will Not Be Remanded HERTZ CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hertz Suit Says HORNBLOWER GROUP: H.L. Sues Over Autistics' Equal Access to Ferry HOTEL TWO: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property HRB DIGITAL LLC: Rios Files Suit in N.D. California HUFFY CORP: Tonka Dump Trucks Have Defective Controllers, Suit Says IBOTTA INC: Brodiski Files Suit in D. Colorado INDEED LABORATORIES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Seeks to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert. INNOVATIVE: Birmingham Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Giraudon Suit INTERNATIONAL COURT: Court Junks Emrit Suit with Prejudice INVOICE CLOUD INC: Ladner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JAMES LEBLANC: Bid for More Time to Qualify Experts Tossed JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Cossette Sues Over Unprotected Info JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Dalmacio Sues Over Unprotected Info KASEYA HOLDINGS: W.D. Texas Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Class Suit KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Carl Says KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Conner Alleges KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Awarded $83,460.50 in Fees in Dakus Suit LADY JANE’S: Court Affirms Dismissal of Hair Stylists' Lawsuit LAUNDRESS LLC: Detergents Contained Harmful Bacteria, Gontz Says LEGACY TOUCH: Court Approves Confidentiality Order in Weiner Suit LIFEBRIDGE NORTH: Hanscom Files Class Suit in Mass. Super. LINKEDIN CORP: Intercepted Customers' Communications, Suit Says LIVE OAK: Deburst Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA LUCERO AG: Ortiz, et al. Can Move Default for Default Judgment MARLY BUILDING: Huerta Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA MARYLAND: Loses Bid to Dismiss Connor, et al. ADA Lawsuit MAURI CANTELI: Fernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA MDL 3149: Greci v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Griffin v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Habbal v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Keigley v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Kinney v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT-AFFORDABLE: Court Stays 2nd Class Cert Bid MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Seeks to Certify Collective Action MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Court Closes Member Securities Case MORGAN & MORGAN: S.D. Georgia Stays Discovery in Gugliuzza Suit NESHAMINY SW: Loses Bid to Dismiss Melecio FLSA Lawsuit NESTLE: Summary Judgment Bid in Horti, et al. Suit Granted in Part NORDSTROM INC: Bid to Seal Portions of Gilbert Suit Denied NORDSTROM INC: Time to Answer Gilbert Suit Extended for 60 Days ONE POINT: Court Narrows Claims in Viviali Data Breach Suit ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mack Alleges OPENAI INC: Tremblay Class Action Consolidated in MDL 3143 OUTSOURCED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part PALM SPRINGS: Faces Orellana Class Suit in Cal. Super. PALMETTO H LLC: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Properties PAYCHEX NORTH: Fails to Pay Wages, OT Under Labor Code, Suit Says PEKIN INSURANCE: Settlement in Doyle Suit Gets Preliminary Court OK PILLPACK LLC: Settlement in Williams Suit Obtains Final Court Nod POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keigley Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Dwyer Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greer Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Habbal Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Hauser Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: J.B. Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Joseph Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: K. I. Suit Transferred to S.D. California PRESTIGE CARE: Class Settlement in Brim Suit Gets Final Nod PROTECTIVE LIFE: Settlement in Morneau, et al. Suit Gets Initial OK REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, McGeathy Suit Says REVOLVE GROUP: Influencers Misrepresent Products, Negreanu Claims ROGER GOODELL: Court Endorses Dismissal of Holliday Suit RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Court Endorses Dismissal of Hill Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says SAVE MART: Baker Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal SENIOR LIFE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Matthews TCPA Lawsuit SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Dimarco Over Unwanted Text Messages SHOPIFY INC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Briskin Suit SOHO ART: Layne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Anders Suit Without Prejudice SOUTHEAST SERIES: Parrott Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty STATE OF MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Witham Civil Rights Lawsuit SYSCO: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Fite Case Denied TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Howington, et al. Lose Bid for TRO TEKUMO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melchor Alleges TENNECO: Parker, et al.'s Bid to Amend ERISA Suit Granted in Part TEVA PHARMA: Maryland County May Add One Custodian TIVITY HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Strougo Suit OK'd in Part TRANE US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bradley Alleges TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court Consolidates Two Securities Lawsuits TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Settlement in Tower Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK TRAVEL + LEISURE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 12, 2026 UHG I LLC: Powell Seeks to Certify Two Classes UNIQUE ON THE GO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Da Silva Alleges UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moreno Due August 22 UNITED STATES: Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in J.O.P. Suit UNITED STATES: Court Grants Civil Immigration Detainees' TRO Bid UNITED STATES: Provisional Bid for Stay Tossed VALVE CORPORATION: Court Amends Class Definition in Wolfire Suit VENTURE GLOBAL: Response to Bids for Lead Role in Bowes Due May 19 VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Farley Says VOLATO INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Dismisses Spector Class Action Lawsuit WW INTERNATIONAL: Berger Sues Over Misleading Discount YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Timely Detect Data Breach, Lemaire Says YARDI SYSTEMS: Response to Duffy Antitrust Complaint Due May 5 ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Faces DBC Class Suit Ove Repriced Payments ZUBHA POP: Bran Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, IMWL ********* 1248 HOLDINGS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Tobler ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKOB TOBLER, MICHELLE MCNITT, v. 1248 HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a BICKNELL FAMILY HOLDING COMPANY; MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC f/k/a MARINER HOLDINGS, LLC; MONTAGE INVESTMENTS, LLC; MARINER, LLC f/k/a MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC; MARINER CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; TORTOISE CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; TORTOISEECOFIN PARENT HOLDCO LLC; AMERICAN CENTURY COMPANIES, INC.; AMERICAN CENTURY SERVICES, LLC; AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-02068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Gwynne E. Birzer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' oral motion to compel and granting the parties' joint oral motion to Amend Scheduling Order. During the conference, Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their request for the internal communications acknowledging many would be attorney-client privileged or attorney work product. After discussion the Court overruled the Defendants' relevance objections regarding the communications with the DOJ and found Defendants had not met their burden to show either undue burden or that the information sought was not proportional to the needs of the case. The production of these documents is limited to the relevant temporal scope previously set by the Court. The parties are encouraged to continue to confer regarding full production of the external communications and to work through any privilege issues. Defendants shall produce responsive documents as well as any necessary privilege logs no later than May 15, 2025. After discussion the Court extended the deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiffs' to Respond to Defendants' Conferral Letters Regarding their Responses to Defendants' Written Discovery – May 15, 2025; -- Completion of Discovery for Class Certification – June 13, 2025; -- Motions for Leave to Amend – July 25, 2025; -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification – Aug. 29, 2025; -- Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification – Oct. 17, 2025; and -- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification – Nov. 7, 2025. 1248 Holdings is a private investment company that manages the personal and philanthropic assets. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FdxJwu at no extra charge.[CC] 1A AUTO: Dyer Balks at Misused Employee Stock Ownership Plan Income ------------------------------------------------------------------- Homer Dyer IV, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 1A Auto, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. Richard Green, the Employee Benefits Administration Committee of the 1A Auto, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), Ventura Trust Company, and 1A Auto, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-11152 (D. Mass., April 28, 2025) is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants which allegedly caused the ESOP to overpay for 1A Auto, Inc. stock and misused the Plan's income and other assets. According to the complaint, a complete record of the Defendants' management of the exempt loan and share allocations since the loan was made on April 29, 2022 cannot be reconciled from the information presently available to Plaintiff. There are conflicts in the information available regarding when the loan should be deemed to be effective, what payments were due, what payments were made, and what payments were considered for purposes of participant share allocations. For example, in preparing the Plan's annual reports, the Plan's auditor reported that the Plan received a 2021 contribution in the amount of $3,432,602. The Plan's reports treat that 2021 contribution as a payment toward the April 29, 2022 exempt loan, generating part of the share release to participants for the 2022 plan year. In contrast, the Plaintiff's account statements reflect that the exempt loan payment and share allocation associated with the 2021 contribution were backdated to 2021, resulting in separate loan payments and share allocations for 2021 and 2022. The Plaintiff is an employee of 1A Auto, Inc. He has vested shares of 1A Auto, Inc. stock in his individual account in the Plan. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the losses to the Plan, disgorgement of profits, and appropriate equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of Plan participants. The Plan was established by 1A Auto, Inc. in 2021 to provide retirement benefits to employees via minority ownership of the company. 1A Auto, Inc.'s stock is privately held and not publicly traded. The administrator of the Plan is 1A Auto, Inc. The Plan has more than 300 participants with account balance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Brendan Jarboe, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com - and - Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com 3M COMPANY: Liable to Drinking Water Contamination, Salzman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAL SALZMAN and MAYA NORTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M COMPANY, ARKEMA INC., BASF CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10899-IT (D. Mass., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of warranty for failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants for harm resulting from the contamination of their drinking water and real property in Boxborough, Massachusetts and the surrounding area with hazardous levels of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals manufactured, supplied, and/or sold by the Defendants. The Defendants are the companies responsible for designing, manufacturing, selling, supplying, and/or distributing the chemicals and/or products which caused the contamination of Boxborough's water supplies. The Defendants knew the chemicals and/or products to be unsafe but represented the opposite and continued manufacturing and selling the chemicals. Moreover, the Defendants failed to warn the Plaintiffs, members of the Class, and the public of specific, substantial risks to human health, profiting immensely, suit says. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company based in New Jersey. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Strouss, Esq. Christian Uehlein, Esq. Leah M. McMorris, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM, LLP 84 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 Email: lmcmorris@tenlaw.com 44 STREET: Class & Collective Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL ALMAZO, AYRTON GUERRERO, KELLY LUNA, and EVA LEAL-RUTTEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. 44 STREET F&B LLC d/b/a THE LAMBS CLUB, THE GRAND TOUR COLLECTION LLC d/b/a THE LAMBS CLUB, CHRIS MILLER, and JACK LOGUE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00096-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an amended order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement: The Court grants the Parties' motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs' Notice of Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of Plaintiffs and all current and former tipped, food service employees who worked for Defendants between May 22, 2017, through March 12, 2025, and who do not opt-out of the Action. For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of all current and former tipped, food service employees who worked for Defendants between May 22, 2017, through March 12, 2025. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs Miguel Almazo, Ayrton Guerrero, Kelly Luna, and Eva Leal-Rutten to represent the Class and finds that the Plaintiffs meet all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints the following firm as Class Counsel because they meet all of the requirements under Rule 23(g): Innessa M. Huot, Esq Shawn R. Clark, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com sclark@faruqilaw.com Lambs Club is an 80-seat historical restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kwKvdk at no extra charge.[CC] AES CORP: Court Dismisses Stockholder Challenge to Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a stockholder's challenge to AES Corporation's Advance Notice Bylaws, ruling that the case was not ripe for judicial review. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, leaving open the possibility for the plaintiff to renew the challenge should circumstances change. Plaintiff Martin Siegel is a stockholder of The AES Corporation, a Delaware-incorporated energy company. In August 2023, the Company's board of directors amended AES's advance notice bylaws. At that time, the Board consisted of Jay Morse, Gerard M. Anderson, Janet Davidson, Andres Gluski, Holly Keller Koeppel, Julie Laulis, Alain Monie, Moises Naim, Teresa Sebastian, Maura Shaughnessy, and Tarun Khanna. In June 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action challenging the Advance Notice Bylaws, 10 months after their adoption. Plaintiff neither intends to nominate a director to the AES Board, nor is aware of any stockholder who does. On June 7, 2024, following a books and records demand under 8 Del. C. section 220, Plaintiff filed his complaint asserting that the Advance Notice Bylaws were "facially invalid," and sought a declaration that the Advance Notice Bylaws were "invalid, illegal, and void." Plaintiff also alleged that the Directors had breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the Advance Notice Bylaws. On July 31, 2023, against the backdrop of the SEC's adoption of the Universal Proxy Rule, Rule 14a-19, AES's general counsel and outside counsel recommended that the Board refresh the Company's advance notice bylaws. The Universal Proxy Rule had gone into effect a year prior, and in December 2022, the SEC had issued supplemental guidance clarifying that a company could still exclude stockholder nominees from its proxy card if "the dissident shareholder[] fail[s] to comply with [the Company's] advance notice bylaw requirements. Plaintiff moved to expedite. On June 20, 2024, Defendants moved to stay this action pending the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Kellner v. AIM ImmunoTech Inc. -- Kellner I. On June 26, 2024, after oral argument, both the motions were denied. During oral argument on the motions, Plaintiff's counsel attributed the 10-month delay between the Company's adoption of the Advance Notice Bylaws and Plaintiff's filing suit to what counsel perceived as a change in the law. Counsel explained that, although Delaware case law at the time the Advance Notice Bylaws were adopted seemed to preclude the sort of facial validity claims that Plaintiff was bringing, perceived developments in the law since then had led counsel to believe that courts were, in fact, receptive to such claims. Plaintiff's counsel made plain that Plaintiff was "asserting claims on behalf of all the shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty seeking a judgment declaring the improper bylaw provisions facially invalid." The defendants argued that the plaintiff's challenge to AES's Advance Notice Bylaws was not ripe for judicial review since no stockholder was actually seeking to nominate a director, making the case entirely hypothetical. They emphasized that Delaware courts require a "genuine, extant controversy" before undertaking equitable review of bylaws, and contended that advance notice bylaws are fundamentally different from stockholder rights plans or dead hand proxy puts because they don't impose "immediate and devastating" financial consequences. According to the Court, "Delaware courts decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case unless the underlying controversy is ripe" and "do not render advisory or hypothetical opinions." This principle is particularly important in corporate governance disputes, where courts prefer to examine bylaws in the context of actual application rather than theoretical concerns. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's challenge failed the ripeness test because it presented only a hypothetical dispute. The Plaintiff admitted he had no interest in running a proxy contest but claimed the bylaws would impermissibly burden stockholders' voting rights. Critically, the Plaintiff did not identify any stockholder who was actually deterred by the bylaws from nominating a director, nor did he allege that the disclosure requirements he challenged would even apply to him personally. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the board's allegedly defensive posture in adopting the bylaws was sufficient to state a ripe claim. While acknowledging that "Delaware courts scrutinize closely corporate acts that affect stockholder voting," the Court emphasized that such scrutiny requires a "genuine, extant controversy." The Court found that "a few slides with generic references to stockholder activism do not transform this dispute from an 'imagined' one to a 'real-world' one." The Court also dismissed the Plaintiff's attempt to analogize advance notice bylaws to stockholder rights plans and "dead hand proxy puts." Unlike these mechanisms, which impose "immediate and devastating financial consequences" when triggered, advance notice bylaws merely result in the rejection of nominees, allowing stockholders to address shortcomings, engage with the board, or pursue legal remedies. Without an actual proxy contest or even a stockholder claiming to be deterred from making a nomination, the Court concluded that the case presented precisely the type of hypothetical dispute inappropriate for judicial review, and therefore granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The case is styled, Martin Siegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jay Morse, Gerard M. Anderson, Janet Davidson, Andres Gluski, Holly Keller Koeppel, Julie Laulis, Alain Monie, Moises Naim, Teresa Sebastian, Maura Shaughnessy, Tarun Khanna, and The AES Corporation, Defendants, C.A. No. 2024-0628-NAC (Del. Ch.). Counsel for Siegel et al.: -- Gregory V. Varallo, Esq., Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq., and Daniel E. Meyer, Esq., at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; -- Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq., Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq., Vivek Upadhya, Esq., and William G. Passannante II, Esq., at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; -- Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq., Christopher J. Orrico, Esq., Shiva Mohan, Esq., and James Janison, Esq., at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in New York, New York; -- Lori Marks-Esterman, Esq., and Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq., at Olshan Frome & Wolosky, in New York, New York; and -- Michele S. Carino, Esq., at Greenwich Legal Associates, LLC, in Greenwich, Connecticut. Counsel to Defendants: -- Blake Rohrbacher, Esq., Matthew W. Murphy, Esq., and John M. O'Toole, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; -- Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq., Elizabeth A. Benshoff, Esq., and Daniel C. Loesing, Esq., at Jones Day, in Columbus, Ohio. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=3 ALATRADE FOODS: Bouyer Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON BOUYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALATRADE FOODS HOLDINGS, INC.; and ALATRADE FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00304 (M.D. Ala., April 23, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Alatrade Foods Holdings, Inc. operates as a meat food processing company. The Company offers poultry processing facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Larry A. Golston, Esq. Leon Hampton, Jr., Esq. Jessi M. Haynes, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, Alabama 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 Email: Dee.miles@beasleyallen.com Larry.golston@beasleyallen.com Leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com Jessi.haynes.@beasleyallen.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Court Affirms Dismissal of Silver TCPA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Paul J. Kelly, Jr. and Allison H. Eid of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granting the City of Albuquerque's motion to dismiss the class action filed by Gerald Silver. In 2022, Silver brought a putative class action against the City of Albuquerque alleging that the City violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq., when it made pre-recorded phone calls inviting its residents to attend virtual town hall meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The City moved to dismiss Silver's claim on two grounds. The City argued it was not subject to the TCPA because it was not a qualifying "person" under the statute. It contended that, even if it was subject to the TCPA, the calls fell under the TCPA's exception for calls made for emergency purposes. The district court granted the motion, and Silver timely appealed. Silver makes several additional arguments, none of which is persuasive. He argues that the calls do not fall within the exception because they were made without regard to whether they were relevant to the called parties. He contends that, because he had not expressed a desire to attend the town hall meetings, the phone calls were not relevant to him. Silver also argues that there were less intrusive means for the City to inform residents about the town halls, or, in the alternative, that the City's calls could not have related to COVID-19 because they did not explicitly mention COVID-19. Silver asserts that the robocalls violate the TCPA because the content of the virtual town halls did not always concern COVID-19. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, The Circuit Judges affirm the district court's dismissal of Silver's claim. Even assuming the TCPA applies to local governments, Silver's complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the TCPA generally prohibits the use of robocalls, it excepts from coverage calls made necessary in any situation affecting the health and safety of consumers. And because the City made the calls to inform citizens that town hall meetings would be held virtually -- a circumstance made necessary by the social-distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic -- the calls fall squarely within that exception. The appeals case is GERALD SILVER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Defendant - Appellee, No. 23-2058 (10th Cir.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cuoDGD Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant: Carter B. Harrison, IV, Esq. HARRISON & HART, LLC Albuquerque, New Mexico 924 Park Ave SW, Suite E Albuquerque, NM 87102-3023 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee: Cerianne L. Mullins, Esq. Mark T. Baker, Esq. PEIFER HANSON MULLINS & BAKER, P.A. 20 First Plaza Center, Suite #725 Albuquerque, NM 87102 E-mail: cmullins@peiferlaw.com mbaker@peiferlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Allowed Leave to File Over-Long Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER, CHRISTOPHER CAIN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, SHARON PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Rothstein entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file over-long reply and for extension of time. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdnDMU at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Must Oppose Frame-Wilson Class Cert Bid by June 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: The class certification deadlines in Frame-Wilson are modified as follows: Amazon's deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' class certification motion is June 6, 2025; the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of class certification is Aug. 8, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion on February 20, 2025, along with a report of Dr. Pathak. Amazon was not able to access the complete back-up material until March 19, 2025. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tROMcz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Yotam Barkai, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com ybarkai@paulweiss.com APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Seeks to Modify Dec. 4 Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA TISDALE, an individual; TERRENCE PRATT, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 21, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 16 for an entry of an Order granting the Plaintiffs leave to move to modify the Dec. 4, 2024, Scheduling Order. Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the deadline for filing their motion for class certification be extended so that the Plaintiffs may refile their motion for class certification to afford the Plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to litigate class issues. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move this Court pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b) for an Order granting relief from the Court's April 1, 2025, Order Striking Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, due to the Plaintiffs' mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Apria is a provider of home medical equipment and clinical support. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bw7lT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALEJANDRO P GUTIERREZ INC 2100 Hillcrest Drive Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 477-8373 E-mail: Alex@apgutierrezlaw.com - and - Daniel J. Palay, Esq. Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq. PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC 1746 S. Victoria Avenue, Suite 230 Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 628-8220 Facsimile: (805) 765-8600 E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com BARRICK GOLD: Court Stays Allen FLSA Class Action Until May 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the stipulated request of the parties to stay the case captioned as WADE ALLEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC; and TURNER STAFFING GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00231-CLB (D. Nev.) pending the filing of a motion for preliminary settlement approval. This case is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and putative class action under FRCP 23. Onn March 6, 2025, the parties have reached a settlement in principle for a collective and class action settlement that will be subject to the Court's preliminary and final approval under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are in the process of finalizing the long-form settlement agreement and exhibits, determining the allocation of settlement funds amongst putative collective and class members, selecting a settlement administrator, and preparing the motion for preliminary approval, which they expect to file by May 22, 2025. Accordingly, the parties have stipulated to, and request that the Court issue an order continuing the stay of this case until May 22, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uI5byx from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Plaintiff Wade Allen: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Ste. 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 - and - Roger Wenthe, Esq. ROGER WENTHE, PLLC 2831 St. Rose Pkwy., Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: (702) 971-0541 Attorneys for Defendant Turner Staffing Group, LLC: Joshua A. Sliker, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 921-2460 Fax: (702) 921-2461 E-mail: Joshua.Sliker@jacksonlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant Nevada Gold Mines LLC: Anthony L. Hall, ESQ. SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC 690 Sierra Rose Dr. Reno, NV 89511 Phone:(775) 785-0088 BILL NELSON: Barth Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BARTH, DENNIS EDWARD CULLEY, MICHAEL EFFINGER, and GRETCHEN THOMAS, v. BILL NELSON, NASA ADMINISTRATOR, Case No. 1:24-cv-01634-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification and allowing the proceedings to advance as a class complaint. Accordingly, the putative class would necessarily apply to the entire class of individuals identified here and who have yet to be identified. The substantial similarity in experience and in harm mitigates any interest of the individual class members’ need to prosecute these claims. To the extent the harms differed, they fall within definable categories that are easily manageable. A class action would be the superior method by which to adjudicate their claims because of the similarities of the experience of the individual members, who all experienced the same policies and the same culture within the FBI, asserts the suit. Ms. Thomas brought suit for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against then NASA Administrator Bill Nelson on June 3, 2024. She amended her class complaint to include Plaintiffs Christopher Barth, Dennis Culley, and Michael Effinger on Dec. 6, 2024. Ms. Thomas, a GS-14 Manned Test Director at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas applied for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccines, submitted on Oct. 5, 2021. She also submitted a Religious Exemption to the testing mandate on March 17, 2022. NASA never adjudicated either of her religious exemption requests and eventually dismissed them for everyone once the vaccination mandate was rescinded on May 12, 2023. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pR6bS9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Scott Lloyd, Esq. LLOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC 106 Chester Street, Suite 1 Front Royal, VA 22630 Telephone: (540) 823-1110 E-mail: scott@lloydlg.com BILL WISE'S: Parties Must Confer on Scope of Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH E. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BILL WISE'S EXCAVATING, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00225-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered an order as to Hybrid Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective/Rule 23 Class Actions as follows: 1) The parties shall confer in good faith on the scope of the FLSA class for purposes of conditional certification, and shall determine whether any agreements or stipulations can be reached as to: (1) whether a collective can be conditionally certified; (2) the definition of the conditional collective; and (3) any form notice to be sent to any opt-ins. If no agreements can be reached, the parties shall state what, if any, limited fact discovery they need before moving for conditional certification. 2) The parties shall confer in good faith on a proposed consent order that would delineate the parameters of what Defendant’s management and supervisors can and cannot say to any potential opt-in class members who might raise questions about the litigation. 3) The parties shall confer in good faith on a proposed two- phased fact discovery schedule for: (1) fact discovery as to conditional certification; and (2) remaining merits fact discovery. In proposing a schedule, unless there are particularly complex discovery issues, the parties shall consider a 30-day period for expedited conditional certification discovery; followed by a 30-day period for briefing; and a 30-day period for any decision by the Court on conditional certification. Bill Wise is a construction company based in New Freeport, PA and specializes in Excavation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLbzv8 at no extra charge.[CC] BINANCE HOLDINGS: Court Transfers Martin Suit to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP MARTIN, T.F. (NATALIE) TANG, and YATIN KHANNA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD. d/b/a BINANCE, BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. d/b/a BINANCE.US, a Delaware corporation, and CHANGPENG ZHAO, Case No. 2:24-cv-01264-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to transfer or compel arbitration: 1. Defendants' motion to transfer pursuant to the first-to-file Rule or compel arbitration is granted. 2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The putative class in this action includes: "All persons or entities in the United States whose cryptocurrency was removed from a non-Binance/BAM digital wallet, account, or protocol as a result of a hack, ransomware, or theft and, between Aug. 16, 2020, and the date of Judgment (the "Class Period"), transferred to a Binance.com account, and who have not recovered all of their cryptocurrency that was transferred to Binance.com (the "Class")." Binance operates as a cryptocurrency exchange platform. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o58CQF at no extra charge.[CC] BIRDIES IN THE PINES: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVELIO ROSALES GALINDEZ AND RAUL CRUZ ZAMORA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIRDIES IN THE PINES, LLC d/b/a THE CHALLENGE AT GARDEN VALLEY, THE CHALLENGE AT THE PINNACLE, LLC, THE CHALLENGE GOLF GROUP, LTD, AZALEA TRAIL, LLC, AND DAVID CARLILE, Case No. 6:25-cv-00144 (E.D. Tex., April 28, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek in direct violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs worked in non-exempt manual labor positions, including groundskeeping, maintenance, and related tasks, and were paid on a bi-weekly basis. The Defendants own and operate Garden Valley Golf Club, also known as Garden Valley Golf Resort, located in Lindale, Texas. The property features an 18-hole course called The Dogwood, a clubhouse, and a driving range with three practice tees. Operating as a public-access golf destination, Garden Valley Golf Club, its facilities, and surrounding residential properties served as the primary worksites for Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicanor Pesina, Jr. PESINA LAW FIRM, PLLC 100 East Ferguson Street, Suite 1206 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 202-2797 Facsimile: (903) 347-2211 E-mail: nick@pesinalawfirm.com - and - Daniel A. Noteware, Jr. NOTEWARE LAW FIRM, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1206 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 747-8245 Facsimile: (903) 730-5151 E-mail: dan@notewarelaw.com BIZ ADVANCE: Faces Cardenas TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIZ ADVANCE NOW INC., a New York registered corporation, and OXFORD FUNDING SOURCE INC., a New York registered corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-02339-KAM-JAM (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing telemarketing calls and text messages to consumers without consent including calls and texts to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call registry. The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendants' conduct. The Plaintiff Cardenas is a resident of Chula Vista, California. She is the sole owner and user of her cell phone number ending in 5615. Biz Advance created Oxford Funding as a lead-generation front to channel telemarketing efforts away from its main brand, which has accumulated substantial negative consumer complaints, asserts the Court.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: Elaw@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq, KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com BLISS RESTAURANT: Guilmette Seeks Tipped Workers' Hourly Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER GUILMETTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BLISS RESTAURANT BAR & CATERING INC., and RONALD HOFFMAN, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-02395 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant did not pay their Tipped Workers, including Plaintiff, an hourly wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff now brings the First Cause of Action, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, on behalf of all individuals employed by Defendants as Tipped Employees at any time since March 1, 2022, who elect to opt-in into this action. The Plaintiff brings the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 23) on behalf of all individuals employed by Defendants as Tipped Workers at any time since March 1, 2019 (the NYLL Class). Plaintiff Guilmette was employed by the Defendants as a server from about May 2022 through April 2024. As a server, Plaintiff waited on Defendants' customers, taking their orders, bringing them food and drinks , and performing side work at the restaurant. The Defendants' bartenders, servers, and bussers (Tipped Workers) earn tips by waiting on the Defendants' customers. The Defendants operate the restaurant, bar, and catering business located at 766 Rt. 25A, East Setauket, New York City, known as Bliss.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Kaske, Esq. Tana Forrester, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: gkaske@kesslermatura.com tforrester@kesslermatura.com BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Clark Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- TONNISHA CLARK, an individual, DAVID SANCHEZ, an individual, JOSE MARTINEZ, an individual, and JAVIER GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated and the State of California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC, an Ohio limited liability company doing business as BLOOMINGDALE'S AND FORTY CARROTS, LISA PETERSON, an individual and DOES 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25STCV12392 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2025) seeks wages, overtime pay, expense reimbursements, penalties, injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs bring this representative action on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, as to all current and former non-exempt employees of Bloomingdale's in the State of California who held the positions of servers and/or cooks, and anyone with a "lead" designation in these positions, during the period beginning one year prior to the Labor Workforce Development Agency Notice of claims arising under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC, an Ohio limited liability company doing business as BLOOMINGDALE'S AND FORTY CARROTS, operates as a department store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Joshua Ritz, Esq. T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. www.rrhllp.com 13400 Riverside Dr Ste 101 Sherman Oaks CA 91423 Telephone: (818) 788-1123 Facsimile: (818) 788-1126 BRADLEY, IL: Neufeld Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL -------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY NEUFELD, JOHN BUSH, LANDON DESPOT, AUDIS EDWARDS, CHAD ELDER, GRACIE HIR, KAYLA KARRAKER, DANIEL MEIER, LUCAS SCHEJBAL, TYLER SMAGA, KATELYN SURANE, DREW WALTERS, and all others similarly situated v. VILLAGE OF BRADLEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-04685 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Since at least April 2022, and continuing until about January 2025, the Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated current and former employees of the Village of Bradley working as "part-time" firefighters have not been paid any overtime compensation for hours worked over 212 hours in each 28-day work period. The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 212 hours for each relevant work period, liquidated damages under the FLSA, treble damages under the IMWL, interest, declaratory relief, civil penalties, and all attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendant as a "part-time" firefighters. Defendant Village of Bradley is a municipality located within Kankakee County, llinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt Pierce, Esq. Alex Behn, Esq. ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD. 200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone:(312) 263-1500 E-mail: mjp@ulaw.com ajb@ulaw.com BROWN PAINDIRIS: Faces Eccleston Class Action in D. Conn. --------------------------------------------------------- Brown Paindiris & Scott, LLP, a full-service law firm, is facing class action lawsuit for fraud. The case was filed last March 21, 2025, and is captioned Thomas Eccleston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brown Paindiris & Scott, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00510-VDO (D. Conn.). Judge Vernon D. Oliver is presiding over the case.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com BUFFALO, NY: Black Love Class Certification Bid Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christina Reis of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the case captioned as BLACK LOVE RESISTS IN THE RUST, DORETHEA FRANKLIN, TANIQUA SIMMONS, DE'JON HALL, JANE DOE, Individually and on behalf of a class of Others similarly situated, SHIRLEY SARMIENTO, EBONY YELDON, CHARLES PALMER, SHAKETA REDDEN, and JOSEPH BONDS, Plaintiffs, CITY OF BUFF ALO, N.Y., BYRON B. BROWN, Mayor of the City of Buffalo, in his individual and official capacities, BYRON C. LOCKWOOD, Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, DANIEL DERENDA, former Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, AARON YOUNG, officer of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, KEVIN BRINKWORTH, PHILIP SERAFINI, officer of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, ROBBIN THOMAS, officer of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, UNKNOWN SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL 1-10, officers of the Buffalo Police Department, in their individual capacities, UNKNOWN OFFICERS 1-20, officers of the Buffalo Police Department, in their individual capacities, and ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00719 (W.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Shaketa Redden, Dorethea Franklin, Taniqua Simmons, De' Jon Hall, Joseph Bonds, Charles Palmer, Shirley Sarmiento, Ebony Yeldon, and Jasmine Evans bring this action against the City of Buffalo, New York; City of Buffalo Mayor Byron B. Brown; Buffalo Police Department Commissioner Byron C. Lockwood; former BPD Commissioner Daniel Derenda; Aaron Young; Kevin Brinkworth; Philip Serafini; Robbin Thomas; and 1-10 unknown supervisory officers and 1-20 unknown officers on behalf of themselves and other Black and Latino motorists in the City. Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints. Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers, in accordance with an implicit quota system, continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. Plaintiffs seek to certify three distinct classes: (1) a "Checkpoint Class"; (2) a "Tinted Windows Class"; and (3) a "Traffic Enforcement Class." The Checkpoint Class, represented by Plaintiffs Bonds, Evans, and Redden, asserts claims for: (1) a violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; (3) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause; and (4) a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000(d). The Tinted Windows and Traffic Enforcement Classes assert claims for: (l) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause; (2) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; and (3) a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000(d). Plaintiffs Franklin, Palmer, and Yeldon are the proposed class representatives for the Tinted Windows Class. All individual Plaintiffs in the suit will serve as class representatives for the Traffic Enforcement Class. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and a class-wide injunction mandating significant changes in Defendants' policies, practices, and customs, as well as an award of compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Plaintiffs seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes, and class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for the Traffic Enforcement Class. In their supplemental submission in support of class certification, they advised that the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes will not seek to recover damages for consequential harms, such as emotional distress and lost wages. For these classes, Plaintiffs intend to pursue: (l) general damages in an amount determined by the jury; (2) punitive damages in an amount determined by the jury; (3) direct economic damages, consisting of the fines and fees that class members paid in connection with tickets and impounds; and (4) equitable disgorgement of the same. Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' proposed injunctive relief as requesting an "obey the law" injunction. Plaintiffs counter that they seek injunctive relief in the form of a single, class-wide order directing the City to modify its policies and procedures to prevent the BPD from engaging in racially motivated traffic stops and ticketing and retaining jurisdiction until such time as the City can establish compliance. Traffic Enforcement Class Defendants argue that, because the City ceased using Checkpoints as of January 2018 and disbanded the Strike Force, the Traffic Enforcement Class lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief as any future injury is purely speculative. Plaintiffs respond that Defendants have not disavowed the Checkpoints, which could resume at any time, and that the potential for their revival poses a non-speculative threat of constitutional violations. Because no Plaintiff has established that he or she is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the members of the Traffic Enforcement Class have standing. For this reason, the Traffic Enforcement Class's request for class certification denied, the Court holds. Remaining Proposed Classes Numerosity Plaintiffs allege that the Checkpoint Class contains at least 3,000 members, and the Tinted Windows Class contains more than 6,000 members. The total number of individuals in this case is thus estimated to be close to ten thousand. Defendants do not contest numerosity, and the Court finds this requirement has been met. Commonality Defendants argue that none of the proposed classes satisfy the commonality requirement because the determination of general and individualized damages, even with Plaintiffs' narrowing of the relief sought, is ill-suited for class action litigation. Commonality, however, may be satisfied by common questions of law and fact and need not encompass every issue in the case. The Court finds because there are common questions of law and fact for both the Checkpoint Class and the Tinted Windows Class, Plaintiffs have established commonality. According to the Court, in this case, commonality for the Checkpoint Class arises out of allegedly uniform and unconstitutional BPD practices conducted at discrete and identifiable Checkpoints raising a legal challenge common to all class members and all Defendants. Common questions of law include whether the initial stop was lawful and, if so, whether the secondary stop was lawful as well. Because Plaintiffs may seek nominal damages for the alleged constitutional violations, there is commonality for that type of relief as well, the Court adds. Typicality Plaintiffs Franklin, Palmer, and Yeldon seek to serve as the class representatives for the Tinted Windows Class and are Black individuals who received multiple tinted window tickets from BPD officers at a single traffic stop while driving in the City of Buffalo. Their claims arise from BPD's allegedly unconstitutional practice of issuing multiple citations to Black and Latino motorists for tinted windows as a source of traffic enforcement revenue. According to the Court, this suffices to satisfy typicality because each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendants' liability. Defendants argue that the Checkpoint Class and Tinted Windows Class lack typicality because some, but not all, Plaintiffs' individualized damages claims are barred by Townes v. City of New York. In so far as individualized damages are concerned, the Court agrees. The Court, however, treats this issue as a challenge to predominance. It remains true that the class representatives' claims are typical of claims of the class. Adequacy Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to establish adequacy because there is a divergence between class representatives who are barred from damages and class representatives and members who may be entitled to damages, purportedly rendering the class representatives inadequate. Plaintiffs, however, have amended their requests and no longer seek individualized damages for emotional distress and lost wages. For their remaining individual damages claims, adequacy exists because there is no evidence the class representatives' claims conflict with those of other classes or within the class. Because the proposed class representatives' and class members' interests align, and because the proposed class representatives do not have any conflict of interest that would prevent them from serving as a class representative, Plaintiffs have established adequacy, the Court finds. Ascertainability Defendants contend the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes are not ascertainable because only members issued invalid tickets are appropriate class members and because Plaintiffs allegedly arbitrarily selected the Classes' determining characteristics. Defendants, however, cannot redefine Plaintiffs' proposed classes. The Court finds Plaintiffs have established ascertainability. Predominance Defendants assert that predominance may not be found because each traffic stop requires an individualized determination as to its lawfulness. Plaintiffs counter that no individualized determinations are necessary because all Checkpoint stops were unconstitutional and all Tinted Windows class members' stops were lawful but resulted in racially motivated ticketing. Neither Class thus requires an individualized determination of liability. Defendants respond that questions of individualized damages nonetheless predominate, According to the Court, because Plaintiffs' requests for individual economic damages for fines and fees will require a determination of whether those economic consequences are justified in each class member's case, common questions of law and fact will not predominate for the damages portion of this case. The Court finds Plaintiffs have established predominance for the Checkpoint Class and the Tinted Windows Class. Superiority According to the Court, at this juncture, there is no apparent interest by putative class members to individually litigate their cases, nor would it be economically feasible to do so. Thus, the Court finds class certification a superior means of adjudicating this case for the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QS3ArE from PacerMonitor.com. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Disclose Data Without Consent, Xavier Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL XAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 25cv-119142 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 16, 2025) is a class action suit to address the Defendant's offensive, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing its patients' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information and additional unknown data brokers in clear violation of law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Class Members who used the Defendant's Web Properties reasonably believed they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare and insurance providers, and nothing about the Web Properties' appearance indicated that unauthorized third parties such as Google would intercept and obtain Private Information submitted by patients. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Tracking Technologies embedded on BSCA's Web Properties contain source code that surreptitiously track, record, and disseminate Plaintiff's and Class Members' online activity and communications, including Private Information, to Google without first obtaining permission, in violation of HIPAA, state laws, industry standards, and patient expectations, says the suit. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides group and individual term life, accidental death and dismemberment, vision, and stop loss insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com -and- Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Bid to Appoint Counsel in Justus Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel to represent class action in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT JUSTUS, Plaintiff v. J. DOERER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to consider appointment of counsel in conjunction with class action request. Judge Boone opines that the Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, citing Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and that the Court cannot require any attorney to represent the Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, Judge Boone notes that the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The Plaintiff's request for this matter to proceed as a class action was denied on April 10, 2025, and the Plaintiff has presented no other grounds to support his request. The Plaintiff's desire to pursue a class action does not, by itself, warrant appointment of counsel, Judge Boone explains. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r4sbeu7 from PacerMonitor.com. CALIFORNIA: Report Recommending Dismissal of Justus Suit Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California vacates the Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the lawsuit styled ROBERT JUSTUS, Plaintiff v. J. DOERER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On Feb. 7, 2025, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Plaintiff did not file a response, and Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action were issued on March 11, 2025. On March 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a response to the now-discharged order to show cause, motion for 90-day extension of time for all pending deadlines, and motion to create a class action. The Plaintiff's motion for class action was denied on April 10, 2025. In response to the order to show cause as the exhaustion of the administrative remedies, the Plaintiff contends that the lack of exhaustion of the administrative remedies is not clear from the face of the complaint because the administrative remedies were unavailable. Based on the Plaintiff's contentions in the current response to the order to show cause, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust. However, because exhaustion of the administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, the Court makes no ruling as to whether the Plaintiff has, in fact, exhausted the administrative remedies. Inasmuch as the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to exhaust, the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to comply with all future deadlines is denied as unnecessary as there are currently no pending deadlines in light of this order, Judge Boone holds. The Plaintiff is advised the Court will screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A in due course. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Findings and Recommendations issued on March 11, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time filed on March 12, 2025, is denied as unnecessary. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ech83frv from PacerMonitor.com. CARELON BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Provider Directories ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE as Mother of MINOR DOE, HANNAH LANDERER, and STEVEN MARKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARELON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03489 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant mislead people in need of qualified mental health providers by publishing grossly inaccurate directories of doctors and therapists (ghost networks). According to the complaint, ghost networks are directories provided by health insurers and administrators that list health care providers that purportedly are in-network with their insurance plan, but in reality, are not. These ghost networks are also replete with errors and duplications, which make them inaccurate, incomplete, deceptive, and misleading. Mental health provider directories are more likely than any other medical specialty to be ghost networks. The Defendant's publication of an inaccurate provider directory is not just an inconvenience for people searching for mental health providers; it is far more insidious and costly. By publishing an inaccurate provider directory where the vast majority of doctors listed -- more than 80% -- either do not exist, are listed with non-working or inaccurate telephone numbers (making them virtually impossible to contact) or are not actually in-network with the Defendant, the Defendant did not just mislead people, but damaged them, asserts the suit. These damages are not just financial, but also frequently contribute to exacerbating patients' mental health problems. The people using the Defendant's provider directory are often desperate for mental health care for themselves, their children, or their loved ones. And the inaccurate provider directory actually causes harm. Some patients, like the Plaintiffs, have had their treatment delayed. The Plaintiffs' insurance policies are supposed to cover mental health care, with a robust in-network community of mental health providers provided by the Defendant and administered by the Defendant, the suit says. Plaintiff Jane Doe is the mother of 16-year-old Minor Doe. Jane Doe and Minor Doe are residents of Westchester County, New York. Jane Doe is a member of the NYSHIP Empire Plan through her husband, who is an employee of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). She has been a member of the NYSHIP plan since 2022. Plaintiff Hannah Landerer is a resident of Nassau County, New York. She is an employee of the New York State Department of Education and has been a member of the NYSHIP plan since 2019. Plaintiff Steven Marks is a resident of Rockland County, New York. He is an employee of the State University of New York and has been a member of NYSHIP plan since 2023. Carelon was known as Beacon Health Options. Carelon is a Massachusetts-based company registered to do business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve Cohen, Esq. Anna Menkova, Esq. POLLOCK COHEN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1804 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 337-5361 E-mail: Scohen@PollockCohen.com - and - Jacob Gardener, Esq. WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP 250 Vesey St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 335-2965 E-mail: jgardener@wmhwlaw.com CEREBRAL INC: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert by June 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barak Federman v. Cerebral, Inc. (Re: Cerebral, Inc. Privacy Practices), Case No. 2:23-cv-01803-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are vacated. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement agreement no later than June 16, 2025. The Defendant is encouraged to also file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval. 3. The Plaintiff is advised that the court will not grant the Motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements. Cerebral provides health care software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00ugYZ at no extra charge.[CC] CHOBANI LLC: Yugort Products Contains Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY WYSOCKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOBANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00907-JES-VET (S.D. Cal., April 16, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Act, and the California's False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Products of the Defendants, the Chobani's Nonfat Plain Greek Yogurt and Chobani's Whole Milk Plain Greek Yogurt (the "Products"), contain multiple plastic chemicals, including di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, and phthalate substitute called di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate. These findings contradict Defendant's prominent front-label and lid representations that its Product contains "only natural ingredients." These phthalates are endocrine-disrupting chemicals "mainly used as plasticizers added to polyvinyl chloride plastics for softening effects" which "are detrimental to human health." These chemicals have also been reported as probable human carcinogens by the EPA, says the suit. Chobani, LLC produces dairy products. The Company offers yogurt, ice-creams, milk, milk powder, and other dairy products. Chobani serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com CLEMENTS CHIROPRACTIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goding Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHENG GODING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEMENTS CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, INC.; COREY CLEMENTS, D.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25LBCV01083 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Goding was employed by the Defendants as a massage therapist. Clements Chiropractic Center, Inc. is a medical group practice located in Long Beach, CA that specializes in chiropractic and acupuncture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP 100 Oceangate, Suite 1200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 733-2498 Facsimile: (562) 733-2498 Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, West Says ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS WEST JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and WK KELLOGG CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-50177 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, alleges the suit. Cleo Communications, Inc. provides information technology services. The Company offers software development, cloud management, application integration, and IT consulting services. Cleo Communications serves healthcare, manufacturing, power generation, software and technology, supply chain, logistics, and retail industries worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com COLE HAAN: Cortes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH CORTES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLE HAAN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03568 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and retail employees in New York who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to remedy Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices. Mr. Cortes is an adult individual who is a resident of New York City. Plaintiff Cortes was employed by Cole Haan as a retail employee in New York from June 2021 through January 2022. Cole Haan is a privately-owned company that operates almost 100 retail stores in New York and around the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 COLOR IMAGE: Sulici Sues Over Influencers' Deceptive Endorsements ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALINA SULICI and ALEX CHIHAIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLOR IMAGE APPAREL D/B/A ALO YOGA, ALO, LLC, BRIGET STARLEE, BRUNA L. RIO, CORAL SIMANOVICH ROBERTO, GIZELE OLIVEIRA, GEORGINA MAZEO, JOY CORRIGAN, JOSIE CANSECO, LEXI WOOD, LUDI DELFINO, MADISON TEEUWS, MICHELLE SALAS, OLIVIA PONTON, SARA ORREGO, TESSA BROOKS, and VERONKA RAJEK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03928 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, California's Unlawful Business Practices Act, and consumer protection laws of various states, unjust enrichment under California and Illinois Laws, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' deceptive, unfair and misleading promotion of ALO products in the states of Illinois, Florida, California, and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant Influencers misrepresented the material connection they have with ALO by promoting, endorsing, and recommending ALO products on social media without disclosing the fact that they were compensated to do it, a practice that is highly unfair and deceptive. Relying on the undisclosed endorsements and misleading advertising, the Plaintiffs and Class Members purchased ALO products and paid a premium, while the products proved to be of a lower value than the price paid. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered economic losses, says the suit. Color Image Apparel, doing business as ALO Yoga, is an apparel company headquartered in California. ALO, LLC is an apparel company headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bogdan Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C. 1200 N. Federal Hwy., Ste. 375 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 Email: Bogdan@KeithGibsonLaw.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com CONDUENT INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Hafoka Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN HAFOKA, ERIN FULLER RANDALL, DIANNA DAY, ERIC WIIG, MICHAEL CROW, PAWEL KRZYKOWSKI, KRISTEN DAVIS-JONES, THOMAS KUKITZ, TAYLOR GIRARD, SAMUEL MATHEW, JOSHUA HUNTER RHOADES, RICHARD JESKY, and JENNIFER KEANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:25-cv-03437 (D.N.J., April 29, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and approximately 4,300,000 Class Members' sensitive personal health information and personally identifiable information, which as a result, is now the hands of cybercriminals. In March 2024, an unknown actor used Defendant's login credentials to hack into an unstructured SharePoint data repository Defendant managed with its business partner, HealthEquity, Inc. and its subsidiaries WageWorks, Inc. and Further Operations, LLC, and exfiltrated the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive PII and PHI stored therein, including their first and last names, addresses, telephone numbers, employers, Social Security numbers, dependent information, payment card information, health card numbers, health plan member numbers, service types, medical diagnoses, and prescription details, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to detect until June 2024, is the direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement even basic data security measures or oversight to reasonably protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information in its custody and control. Indeed, if the Defendant had implemented reasonable cybersecurity measures -- including sufficient safeguards for initial access or adequate logging, monitoring, and alerting tools-- then the hackers would not have been able to hack into Defendant's cloud-based server, perform reconnaissance functions necessary to identify the location of Plaintiffs' Private Information, and then exfiltrate that data all without being detected for months, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former participant-customers of HealthEquity, who received HSAs, CDBs, and/or other services from HealthEquity, and related third-party administration services from Defendant. CONDUENT INCORPORATED provides digital business solutions and services in the commercial, government and transportation industries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB & JOHNS LLC Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: sholbrook@shublawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli* STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com COSTAR REALTY: Removes Banks Suit from State Court to E.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DESMOND BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Missouri, (Case No. 2522-CC00514) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 23, 2025. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00564-RHH. The case is assigned to Sarah E. Pitlyk. CoStar Realty Information Inc operates as a real estate agent. The Company caters to investors, appraisers, valuation professionals, lenders, retailers, and brokerage applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby M. Everett, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 Email: ceverett@bakerlaw.com CREDIT ONE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Jeffries Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Credit One Bank, N.A.'s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the the case captioned as DANTE JEFFRIES, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-03265-PX (D. Md.). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice subject to arbitration. The plaintiff's motion for a speedy trial is denied as moot. On Oct. 15, 2023, Jeffries applied for a credit card on Credit One's website after he received a pre-approved offer. As part of the on-line offer, Credit One alerted potential card holders that the Credit Card Agreement includes an arbitration provision, which restricts your opportunity to have claims related to the account heard in court or resolved by a jury, and to participate in a class action or similar proceeding. The Agreement allows card holders to reject the Agreement to Arbitrate via written notice of rejection mailed to Credit One within 45 days after the Agreement was first provided to the card holder. Although Jeffries sent a notice of rejection, he did so in August 2024, well beyond the 45-day window. Jeffries next filed suit in Prince George's County Circuit Court against Credit One for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and unspecified violations of "federal law." Credit One timely removed the action to this Court and moved to compel arbitration. Jeffries separately moved for a speedy trial pursuant to Article 19 of the Maryland Constitution. Credit One urges the Court to dismiss the amended complaint under either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), or 12(b)(6) so the matter may proceed in arbitration. Jeffries does not dispute that the arbitration provision is valid and binding, and covers the claims in this case. He singularly argues that the arbitration provision does not extend to his claims because, on Aug. 22, 2024, he gave written notice that he rejected the arbitration provision. The problem for Jeffries is that his notification came too late, well beyond the 45-day rejection window set forth in the Agreement. Jeffries activated the card on Oct. 3, 2023, made his first purchases on Nov. 5, 2023, but waited over eight months to reject the arbitration provision. Accordingly, the arbitration provision remains in full force and effect, the Court finds. Indeed, to credit Jeffries' argument would read the 45-day time constraint out of the Agreement entirely, in contravention of basic contract principles requiring courts to give effect to all plain and unambiguous terms. Because all claims are indisputably covered by the Agreement's arbitration provision, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice so that the claims may proceed in arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIvvcM from PacerMonitor.com. DAMERON HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Donatelli Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CELINA DONATELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAMERON HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:25-at-00339 (E.D. Cal., April 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 2, 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On Nov. 5, 2023, Defendant experienced a security incident on its network. The investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access and exfiltrated files from its systems between November 4 and November 5, 2023. The Defendant then conducted a comprehensive review of the impacted data to determine what information was compromised and how many individuals were impacted. On March 21, 2025, the Defendant discovered that these files may contain sensitive personal and protected health information, says the suit. The Defendant is a hospital that offers a wide range of services, including emergency care, surgical services, diagnostic imaging, cardiac care, orthopedic services, and maternity care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com DANIEL BEERS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasgow, et al., v. Daniel J. Beers, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Oct. 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order extending deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiffs' depositions, Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and discovery relevant to class certification due by May 30, 2025. -- Motion(s) for class certification due by July 29, 2025. -- Briefs in opposition due by Aug. 28, 2025. -- Reply briefs due by Sept. 11, 2025. The nature of suit states Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment.[CC] DAVID YURMAN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. David Yurman Enterprises LLC, Case No. E 0:25-cv-01749 (D. Minn., April 28, 2025) arises because the Defendant's website, www.davidyurman.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to be-come, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities, a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website’s development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DIAMONDROCK TIMES: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- YANETH GARCIA, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. DIAMONDROCK TIMES SQUARE TENANT, LLC Jury Trial Demanded d/b/a PAUL'S ON TIME SQUARE, MASTERPIECE CATERERS CORP. d/b/a SKY 55 BAR & GRILL, d/b/a CAFE 55, VIVO BAYSIDE CORP. d/b/a VIVO BAYSIDE, NN PIZZA CORP. d/b/a PIZZA FACTORY, UNCLE PAUL'S PIZZA & CAFE INC. d/b/a UNCLE PAUL'S PIZZA, NEAT KRKUTI a/k/a NICK KRKUTI, ABIDIN REDZIC a/k/a DINO REDZIC, and PASKO NICAJ a/k/a PAUL NICAJ, Case No. 1:25-cv-03555 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, for all hours worked due to timeshaving; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In April 2022, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a dishwasher, then three months later, the Plaintiff was transferred to work as a food preparer at Defendants' Paul's on Times Square located at 136 W 42nd St, New York City. The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants ended in or around April 2024, when she complained about her wages. The Plaintiff brings additional claims, on behalf of herself and a subclass of employees, pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, due to the deprivation of her and Subclass members' statutory rights caused by the Defendants' discrimination due to their real or perceived immigration status; alienage/citizenship status; and race. The Defendants own and operate restaurants at the following locations in New York City: Paul's on Times Square, 136 W 42nd St.; Sky 55 Bar and Grill, 55 Water St.; Cafe 55, 55 Water St.; Vivo Bayside, 201-10 Cross Island Pkwy, Queens; Pizza Factory, 30-30 47th Ave, Long Island City; and Uncle Paul's Pizza, 70 Vanderbilt Ave.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8TH Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DK COSMETICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. DK COSMETICS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03574 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://sooaenewyork.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on April 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase AHA + PHA Exfoliating Toner Pads from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase AHA + PHA Exfoliating Toner Pads, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: skincare and haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials, the suit says. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. DK operates the Soo'AE New York online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DUNKIN DONUTS: N.D. California Tosses Garland's 1st Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA GARLAND, et al., Plaintiffs v. DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06621-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are ten individuals with lactose intolerance, one of whom also has a milk allergy. They are residents of California, Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas. The lawsuit challenges, as disability discrimination, the extra fee charged for substituting non-dairy alternatives in place of cow's milk in beverages served at Dunkin' Donuts restaurants. On March 14, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Also pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Franchisee Defendants Burton Restaurants, LLC; 6201 Hollywood Donuts LLC; and RW Oakland LLC. The Franchisee Defendants' motions are set to be heard on May 9, 2025. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these motions appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacates the May 9 hearings. As the three pending motions raise overlapping and identical arguments, the Court resolves them together in the present Order. In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC ("Dunkin'") and its franchisees have created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers, who cannot ingest milk. According to the complaint, Dunkin' and its franchisees charge from $0.50 to $2.15 extra to customers, who are lactose intolerant, in order to substitute a non-dairy alternative such as soy, oat, coconut or almond milk in place of the standard 2% cow's milk offered in Dunkin' Donuts beverages. Dunkin' Donuts stores will substitute whole milk or skim milk at no additional charge. Dunkin' Donuts stores will also modify beverages at no charge to make them caffeine-free or sugar-free for customers with hypertension or for those with diabetes or who need to control weight. The Plaintiffs allege there is no material difference in price between cow's milk and the non-dairy alternatives, nor does substituting a non-dairy alternative require expertise or additional work on the part of store employees, such as would justify levying this extra charge. They allege that lactose intolerance and milk allergies are disabilities, and that Dunkin' and its franchisees charge customers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies an excessively high Surcharge to substitute Non-Dairy Alternatives in its drinks. On Dec. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against Dunkin' Donuts LLC. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted Dunkin' Donuts LLC's motion to dismiss, due to lack of personal jurisdiction over that Defendant. The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend and specified that the Plaintiffs were also given leave to amend their complaint to address the issues raised in the motion to dismiss, even if those matters were not specifically addressed in that order. The Court also granted the Plaintiffs' request to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On Dec. 11, 2024, following jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed the FAC, which is now the operative complaint. The FAC no longer names Dunkin' Donuts LLC as a defendant and instead names Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, LLC, along with California-based franchisees 6201 Hollywood Donuts LLC; Burton Restaurants, LLC; RW Oakland LLC; Madison Food Management, LLC; and Golden Gate Restaurant Group, LLC. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of "[a]ll persons who (1) suffer from lactose intolerance, or an intolerance to milk or milk-containing products; and (2) who purchased drinks or other items from Dunkin' within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing to the present." The FAC identifies subclasses of persons, who are citizens of California, Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas, as well as subclasses of persons, who purchased drinks or other items from each franchisee. The Plaintiffs bring claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"); and the discrimination laws of the states of Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas. The Plaintiffs also bring a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. They seek, inter alia, monetary damages, an order for disgorgement of illegally obtained monies, and declaratory relief. Dunkin' moved to dismiss the FAC. On March 11, 2025, just days before the hearing, the parties filed a joint notice stating that on Feb. 20, 2025, a spokesperson for the indirect parent company of Dunkin' announced that effective March 5, dairy alternatives will be standard options for Dunkin' beverages at no additional cost to guests and that this will allow guests visiting any Dunkin' location to enjoy traditional dairy or alternative dairy options in any beverage without an additional charge. The Court held a hearing on Dunkin's motion on March 14, 2025. Franchisee Defendants Burton Restaurants, LLC; 6201 Hollywood Donuts LLC; and RW Oakland LLC also moved to dismiss. Following the March 14 hearing, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs and Dunkin' to file supplemental briefing on the question of whether the ADA claims are now moot. Dunkin' seeks to dismiss the FAC for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (6). Burton Restaurants, LLC; 6201 Hollywood Donuts LLC; and RW Oakland LLC seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Dunkin' first moves to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties agree that only specific jurisdiction is at issue here, as Dunkin' is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Massachusetts. The Court finds Dunkin' subject to specific personal jurisdiction for the claims of the California-based Plaintiffs but not for the claims of the non-forum plaintiffs (Pelayo, Fitch, Mara, Premo, Medeiros, and Smith). The Court grants the motion to dismiss the non-California Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The non-California Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice to their re-filing in an appropriate forum. Judge Illston notes that both the Plaintiffs and Dunkin' take the position that the ADA claims are not moot. Defendants 6201 Hollywood Donuts LLC and RW Oakland LLC argue in their motion to dismiss that the Plaintiffs' Title III ADA claims are moot. On the record presented here, Judge Illston holds that the Plaintiffs' ADA claims are not moot. The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' reasonable modification theory fails. Because the FAC fails to plead intentional discrimination and because there is no ADA violation, the Court will dismiss the Unruh Act claim. The Plaintiffs ask in their papers that the Court grant them another chance at amending any dismissed claims, though they do not explain what they could add to save their claims or why they could not have included this information in the FAC, which the Plaintiffs filed more than six months after the Court's prior dismissal order. Judge Illston holds that nothing before the Court, in the papers or at the hearing, indicates that the Plaintiffs could save their claims through amendment. Because further leave to amend would be futile and would waste both the parties' and the Court's resources, the Court declines the Plaintiffs' request to allow another chance at amendment. For these reasons and for good cause shown, the Court grants Dunkin's motion to dismiss the claims of the non-California Plaintiffs (Pelayo, Fitch, Mara, Premo, Medeiros, and Smith), for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dismissal of the non-California Plaintiffs is without prejudice to their re-filing in an appropriate forum. The Court grants, with prejudice, the motions to dismiss the claims brought by the California-based Plaintiffs (Garland, Hughes, Hernandez, and Cojom), for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on Dec. 11, 2024, adding the Franchisee Defendants. The docket sheet does not indicate when Defendants Madison Food Management, LLC, and Golden Gate Restaurant Group LLC, were served with the FAC, though Madison's counsel has filed a notice of appearance. The Plaintiffs are directed to file a statement by April 28, 2025, regarding the status of service on these Defendants and whether they intend to dismiss these Defendants in light of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2dskdehr from PacerMonitor.com. ELIGO ENERGY: Motion to Substitute Class Representative Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as IRA BROUS and MICHELLE SCHUSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, – against – ELIGO ENERGY, LLC and ELIGO ENERGY NY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' motion to substitute Anne Brous as plaintiff in place of her husband Ira Brous, who passed after the complaint was filed, pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ira Brous and Michelle Schuster brought this putative class action against Eligo Energy, LLC and Eligo Energy NY, LLC alleging breach of contract and violation of various state consumer protection statues. Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on Feb. 20, 2024, on behalf of all Eligo customers in the United States (the "Class") and all Eligo customers in New York (the "Subclass"). Plaintiffs allege that Eligo's deceptive and bad faith pricing practices have caused tens of thousands of commercial and residential customers across the United States to pay considerably more for their electricity and natural gas than they should otherwise have paid. They assert the following causes of action: on behalf of the Class, breach of contract and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Sec. 42-110b, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act Sec. 505/2, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act Sec. 13-303, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act Sec. 445.903, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Sec. 56:8-2, the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law Sec. 201-2(4), and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Sec. 28-3904; and, on behalf of the Subclass, breach of contract and violations of New York General Business Law Sec. 349. Plaintiff Ira Brous died on March 23, 2024. He left a will in which he appointed his wife, Anne Brous, to serve as executor of his estate. Mrs. Brous subsequently undertook to act as the voluntary administrator of funds due to Mr. Brous' estate. On Aug. 22, 2024, a New York state Surrogate's Court authorized Mrs. Brous to collect and receive damages awarded as a result of Mr. Brous' claims in this case. Eligo argues that aspects of Mr. Brous' claims do not survive his death and that Mrs. Brous is not a proper party. Eligo argues it is improper for her to substitute in as a putative class representative. Specifically, Eligo argues it is improper because Mrs. Brous has not established the required personal knowledge to ever be considered adequate or typical, two essential elements of class certification. The Court disagrees. Rule 25(a) is a procedural device allowing litigation to continue on a decedent's behalf. According to the Court, Mrs. Brous need not personally meet the requirements of being a class representative in order to substitute for Mr. Brous in this litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJb36O from PacerMonitor.com. ENDUE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Echols Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KILEY ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENDUE, INC. D/B/A Endue SOFTWARE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00200-JAW (D. Maine, April 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Endue for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach (the Data Breach On Feb. 17, 2025, Endue learned of potential unauthorized access to certain Endue systems. After an investigation, Endue determined that it was subject to a data breach and an unauthorized actor accessed certain computer systems on Feb. 16, 2025, and copied PII and PHI contained within those systems. Accordingly, the PII and PHI stolen in the Breach varies by individual, but generally includes one or more of the following: names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical record numbers. The victims of the Data Breach include current and former patients of Endue's customers, asserts the suit. As a result of Endue's alleged negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Endue's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members -- at least 118,028 individuals, the suit added. Endue provides a software solution built to assist clients in managing infusion care across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com ENERCO GROUP: Purdy Sues Over Sale of Defective Air Propane Heaters ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN PURDY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERCO GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00734-BMB (N.D. Ohio, April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of DeWalt 70,000 BTU outdoor portable cordless forced air propane heaters with defect. According to the complaint, the products are defective because they can overheat and catch fire. The Plaintiff purchased the product, while lacking the knowledge that product could catch fire, thus causing serious harm to those who use such products, suit says. Enerco Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of heating products based in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 696-7394 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 Email: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com FCA US: Court Amends Scheduling Order in D'Angelo Suit ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order granting the parties' second joint oral motion to amend the scheduling order. -- All fact discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be completed on or before July 11, 2025. -- Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification on or before Aug. 18, 2025 -- All substantive provisions of the Court's Scheduling Order remain in effect. 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] FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Howard Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT EARL HOWARD, DAMON PETERSON, CARL TRACY BROWN, and WILLIE WATTS, Plaintiffs, v. MELINDA N. COONROD, RICHARD D. DAVISON, and DAVID A. WYANT, Defendants, No. 6:21-cv-00062-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to Florida's parole system by a certified class of inmates sentenced as juveniles. The court concluded that Florida's procedures do not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, upholding summary judgment in favor of the Florida Commission on Offender Review. The case centers on Florida inmates convicted of serious crimes committed as juveniles—many sentenced to life with parole eligibility under pre-1994 laws. The plaintiffs, known collectively as the “juvenile lifers,” argued that the state’s parole process violated their constitutional rights by failing to offer a meaningful chance at release and by subjecting them to arbitrary procedures. The Eleventh Circuit, in a detailed opinion authored by Judge Newsom, ruled otherwise. The certified class includes all individuals who: (i) were convicted of crimes committed when they were under 18; (ii) received life sentences or de facto life sentences (defined as terms exceeding 470 months); iii) are currently in Florida Department of Corrections custody; (iv) have never been paroled; and (v) are or will become eligible for parole. The plaintiffs, Robert Earl Howard, Damon Peterson, Carl Tracy Brown, and Willie Watts, sued Florida parole officials Melinda Coonrod, Richard Davison, and David Wyant, raising Eighth Amendment and procedural due process claims. The plaintiffs sought class-wide relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The proposed class representatives were Robert Earl Howard, Damon Peterson, Carl Tracy Brown, and Willie Watts. The class action followed prior decisions—Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana—which reshaped constitutional rules for juvenile sentencing. The court’s review focused on whether Florida’s parole system violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and whether it affords inmates the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Florida's parole system includes first, an initial Interview which sets a presumptive parole release date using a matrix informed by a “salient factor” score and offense severity. Second, subsequent Interviews which is conducted every 1–7 years to adjust the presumptive date based on new information. Lastly, the Effective Interview which is the Final assessment before actual release. An Extraordinary Review or a reassessment may happen if parole is denied. Since 2014, a “youthful offender matrix” has produced more favorable release guidelines for juveniles. Before 2014, juvenile scores were adjusted using an adult matrix with an uplift for age. In total, approximately 170 juvenile lifers remain incarcerated in Florida. Since 2012, 24 such inmates have been released through parole. Most of the rest have presumptive release dates at nearly 93 years old, meaning they are unlikely to be released before death. The plaintiffs argued that the system, although offering theoretical parole, was a "sham" that effectively imposed de facto life-without-parole sentences. They also argued that the procedures deprived them of a meaningful opportunity for release and procedural protections guaranteed by the Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kevin Newsom, disagreed. For juvenile homicide offenders, the court held that Florida’s discretionary parole process satisfies the standard set by Miller v. Alabama and Jones v. Mississippi. Because juvenile offenders were not sentenced under a mandatory life-without-parole scheme and because the parole system results in some releases, the court said Florida provides the constitutionally required opportunity for parole consideration. For juvenile non-homicide offenders, the court applied Graham v. Florida, which requires that states provide a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” The court found that Florida’s parole process meets that bar. The Commissioners have discretion to consider maturity and rehabilitation; they actually exercise that discretion, and inmates can present evidence and arguments. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not require release—only a meaningful opportunity for it. Florida’s system, it said, was not generous, but it wasn’t constitutionally defective either. The plaintiffs also raised a procedural due process claim, arguing that the parole process was constitutionally inadequate. The court rejected this argument, finding that Florida inmates have no liberty interest in parole under state law and that the Eighth Amendment does not independently create such a liberty interest. Therefore, no due process protections are triggered. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling in full, upholding summary judgment for the defendants. While acknowledging the harsh realities of long-term incarceration, the Court maintained that Florida’s parole process—though slow and selective—remains constitutionally sound. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://is.gd/avqv6A Ashley Moody – ashley.moody@myfloridalegal.com – Florida Attorney General’s Office, Tallahassee, Florida; Counsel for Defendants Melinda Coonrod, Richard Davison, and David Wyant Miriam Haskell – miriam@floridajusticeinstitute.org – FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, Miami, Florida; Joshua Dubin – josh@dubinlaw.com – LAW OFFICE OF JOSH DUBIN, Miami, Florida; Counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Howard, Damon Peterson, Carl Brown, and Willie Watts. FREEDOM TEAM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alt Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- SHAUN ALT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM TEAM TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00991 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Freedom Team Trading LLC is a company that focuses on helping traders develop a structured and consistent approach to trading. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26 th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Dalton Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, d/b/a Catherines, Case No. 0:25-cv-01838-NEB-SGE (D. Minn., April 29, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.catherines.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant sells its products within and around the State of Minnesota. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, intimates, sleepwear, swimwear, shoes and more. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GANNETT CO: Consolidated Class Action in Tracking Suit Due May 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled IN RE: GANNETT CO. INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-05150-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California directs the Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint no later than May 12, 2025. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Ryan Wu, Saber Khamooshi, and John Deddeh's Joint Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3), filed March 28, 2025. No opposition or other response has been filed. By the instant motion, the Plaintiffs seek an order appointing Eric A. Grover, Esq., of Keller Grover LLP as interim class counsel. The Court finds a sufficient showing has been made that appointment of the proposed interim class counsel is appropriate. In particular, Judge Chesney opines the Plaintiffs have shown that the proposed interim class counsel, along with other attorneys in his firm, has conducted substantial investigation of the factual allegations and potential claims and remedies and, in response to challenges raised by the Defendant, has conducted in-depth legal research, that he has many years of experience representing plaintiffs in class actions, including pursuing other putative class actions based on the use of undisclosed website tracking software or similar technology, which is the basis for the claims in the instant action, that he has knowledge of the applicable law, including the procedural law applicable to federal class actions, and that his firm has the resources necessary to pursue the instant consolidated action on behalf of the putative class. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion and appoints Eric A. Grover, Esq., of Keller Grover LLP as interim class counsel. Interim class counsel will have the joint responsibility for, and authority over, matters, including the initiation, response, scheduling, briefing, and argument related to all pleadings or motions, and overseeing the conduct of the litigation so that it proceeds smoothly and efficiently, and performing such other duties as necessary or as authorized by further order of the Court. The Court directs the Plaintiffs, through interim class counsel, to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint no later than May 12, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/38etz6te from PacerMonitor.com. GARDA CL ATLANTIC: Court Recommends Excluding Wage Claims in Tanza ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY TANZA, MICHAEL S. BOSMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARDA CL ATLANTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04394-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Joan M. Azrack of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommends that the Defendant narrow the release in the Class Settlement to exclude wage-and-hour claims. In an order dated Jan. 19, 2024 ("Jan. 19 Order"), the Court preliminarily approved the Class Settlement, Class Notice, and Claim Form. The Jan. 19 Order was based on a proposed order submitted by the parties. No one objected to the proposed order, which the Court adopted with certain modifications. In the Jan. 19 Order, the Court directed that motions for attorney's fees be submitted within 14 days and directed that any responses by filed within 21 days. This briefing schedule comported with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and this Court's routine practice of requiring Class Counsel to file their motion for attorney's fees before the Class Notice. The briefing schedule set by the Court included a response deadline given the unusual circumstances surrounding attorney Neil Frank and the fact that it was not clear what position Garda would take on Frank's fee application. The Court has always ruled on motions for attorney's fees in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval, which can only be filed after the objection/opt-out deadline has passed. In the Jan. 19 Order, the Court scheduled a final fairness hearing for May 14, 2024, that accounted for the time necessary for the mailing of the notice and the 60-day objection/opt-out period. As such, the Court assumed that the Class Notice would be promptly mailed and that the Court would decide the attorney's fees motion in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval after the class notice had been mailed and the 60-day objection/opt-out period had elapsed. As Class Counsel's letter to the Court indicates, the parties apparently envisioned a different process based on one sentence in the Jan. 19 Order (and the original proposed order) stating that "No deadlines shall run under the Agreement until the issue of fees and costs are resolved by the Court." Considering this confusion, the Court adjourned the final fairness hearing since, as of May 10, 2024, the Class Notice had not yet been mailed to the Class. After the Jan. 19 Order, attorney Steven Moser filed a letter dated April 1, 2024, purportedly on behalf of Sara Cioffi. Moser's letter is styled as an opposition to Neil Frank's application for attorney fees. Judge Azrack opines that Moser's April 1, 2024 letter is procedurally defective because Moser never filed a notice of appearance of behalf of Sara Cioffi. Accordingly, the Court strikes this letter and refuses to consider it. Nevertheless, this class action has been pending for a long time and the Court wishes to expedite the resolution of the class settlement. Therefore, in an effort to avoid any further potential litigation, the Court recommends that Garda narrow the release in the Class Settlement, Class Notice, and Claim Form so that it no longer covers wage-and-hour claims. Garda was to inform the Court by April 29, 2025, whether it will consent to this amendment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxcfvxn from PacerMonitor.com. GAS EXPRESS: Consolidated Complaint Filing in Smith Due June 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KOLONDA SMITH, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. GAS EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a CIRCLE K, Case No. 1:25-cv-00802-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge n. Eleanor L. Ross entered an order consolidating related actions and appointing interim co-lead counsel: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court consolidates Canup v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-396 (filed Jan. 29, 2025); Brown v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-494 (filed Feb.. 3, 2025); Johnson v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25- cv-517 (filed Feb. 4, 2025); and Smith v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-802 (filed Feb. 14, 2025) under the lead case No. 1:25-cv-396 (each a "Related Action" and together the "Consolidated Action"). 2. No further filings shall be made in Brown v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/ a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-494 (filed Feb. 3, 2025); Johnson v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-517 (filed Feb. 4, 2025); and Smith v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-802 (filed Feb. 14, 2025) which the Court directs the Clerk to administratively close. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. This Order shall apply to any subsequently filed putative class action alleging the same or substantially similar allegations. 3. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action. 4. The Defendant Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, shall file a Notice of Related Case whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this Court. 5. The Parties shall abide by the following scheduling order: The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative Consolidated Complaint by June 5, 2025. The Defendant shall respond to the Consolidated Complaint by July 21, 2025. In the event that Defendant's response is a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs shall file their response in opposition by Aug. 19, 2025, and the Defendant shall file any reply by Sept. 9, 2025. Circle K is a Canadian-American chain of convenience stores. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GjVdXQ at no extra charge.[CC] GAS EXPRESS: Filing of Consolidated Complaint Due June 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINCY BROWN, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. GAS EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a CIRCLE K, Case No. 1:25-cv-00494-ELR (N.D. Ga.), .the Hon. Judge n. Eleanor L. Ross entered an order consolidating related actions and appointing interim co-lead counsel: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), the Court consolidates Canup v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-396 (filed Jan. 29, 2025); Brown v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-494 (filed Feb.. 3, 2025); Johnson v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25- cv-517 (filed Feb. 4, 2025); and Smith v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-802 (filed Feb. 14, 2025) under the lead case No. 1:25-cv-396 (each a "Related Action" and together the "Consolidated Action"). 2. No further filings shall be made in Brown v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/ a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-494 (filed Feb. 3, 2025); Johnson v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-517 (filed Feb. 4, 2025); and Smith v. Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, No. 1:25-cv-802 (filed Feb. 14, 2025) which the Court directs the Clerk to administratively close. All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated Complaint. This Order shall apply to any subsequently filed putative class action alleging the same or substantially similar allegations. 3. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated Action. 4. The Defendant Gas Express, LLC d/b/a Circle K, shall file a Notice of Related Case whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or transferred to, this Court. 5. The Parties shall abide by the following scheduling order: The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative Consolidated Complaint by June 5, 2025. The Defendant shall respond to the Consolidated Complaint by July 21, 2025. In the event that Defendant's response is a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs shall file their response in opposition by Aug. 19, 2025, and the Defendant shall file any reply by Sept. 9, 2025. Circle K is a Canadian-American chain of convenience stores. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mn4i2X at no extra charge.[CC] GENWORTH LIFE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended in Kaplan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kaplan, et al., v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01165 (D.D.C., Filed April 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file for class certification under Local Rule 23.1(b). -- The plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification within 90 days of the Court's resolution of the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Genworth Financial, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, provides life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.[CC] GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garner v. Global Plasma Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00665 (D. Del., Filed May 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Stephanos Bibas entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court enter an order as follows: -- Denying summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims about whether the testing was independent. Those claims may advance. -- Granting summary judgment to Defendant on all claims about the efficacy of Defendant's products against COVID-19 for similar reasoning to that adopted in the summary judgment opinion in related case Garner v. Global Plasma Solutions. -- Granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Certifying an opt-out class of plaintiffs who purchased an ionizer in Delaware between March 9, 2020, and June 15, 2021, on the DCFA and implied breach of warranty of merchantability claims. -- Denying class certification on all other claims and denying class certification for a multi-state class. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange. GPS Air, formerly Global Plasma Solutions, is an indoor air quality company based in the United States that provides air quality technologies for residential, commercial and industrial buildings with a focus on using "needlepoint bipolar ionization", also known as soft ionization."[CC] GLOBAL PLASMA: Garner Seeks OK of Voluntary Case Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. GARNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL PLASMA SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00665-SB (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing him to voluntarily dismiss his case with prejudice. The Parties have conferred on this motion, and Defendant objects to the Plaintiff's request to dismiss. The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant leave to dismiss this case with prejudice with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The first factor supports dismissal because Mr. Garner is seeking dismissal with prejudice, Defendant is not exposed to any excessive or duplicative expense of any further litigation of his claims. The second factor supports dismissal because the efforts and expenses incurred by Defendant in preparation solely for Mr. Garner’s trial are minor and primarily subsumed with the efforts and expenses incurred in Fishlock. The third factor supports dismissal because while dismissal of Mr. Garner’s individual claim would terminate, the consolidated Fishlock case is ready to try the case to verdict. The fourth factor supports dismissal because Mr. Garner diligently attempted to dismiss his individual claims within 20 days of the Court's order denying class certification and granting the majority of Defendant's motion for summary judgment which limited the majority of Mr. Garner’s individual claims. On April 17, 2023, Mr. Fishlock's previous local counsel withdrew, and Farnan LLP entered its appearance on behalf of Mr. Fishlock in Fishlock. From Oct. 24, 2024, through April 17, 2024, there have been no substantive filings by either party in the Garner case. On March 10, 2025, Mr. Fishlock filed his motion for class certification, and Global Plasma Solutions filed its motion for summary judgment in Fishlock. Global Plasma provides technology solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G9ikeD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw. - and - Dennis C. Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK LLP 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 622-7271 Facsimile: (713) 623-8724 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com - and - Michael A. Mills, Esq. THE MILLS LAW FIRM 8811 Gaylord Drive, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (832) 548-4414 Facsimile: (832) 327-7443 E-mail: mickey@millsmediation.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com GLOBAL PLASMA: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Fishlock ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fishlock v. Global Plasma Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00522 (D. Del., Filed May 15, 2023), the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court enter an order as follows: -- Denying summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims about whether the testing was independent. Those claims may advance. -- Granting summary judgment to Defendant on all claims about the efficacy of Defendant's products against COVID-19 for similar reasoning to that adopted in the summary judgment opinion in related case Garner v. Global Plasma Solutions. -- Granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Certifying an opt-out class of plaintiffs who purchased an ionizer in Delaware between March 9, 2020, and June 15, 2021, on the DCFA and implied breach of warranty of merchantability claims. -- Denying class certification on all other claims and denying class certification for a multi-state class. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange. GPS Air, formerly Global Plasma Solutions, is an indoor air quality company based in the United States that provides air quality technologies for residential, commercial and industrial buildings with a focus on using "needlepoint bipolar ionization", also know as soft ionization.[CC] GOODRX INC: Weston Pillbox Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Weston Pillbox Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00063 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, 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-03006-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Cheveire, Esq. ROBERT M. CHEVERIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 333 East River Drive, Suite 101 East Hartford, CT 06108 Phone: (860) 290-9610 Fax: (860) 290-9611 Email: enolan@hssklaw.com - and - David A. Slossberg, Esq. Erica Oates Nolan, Esq. HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC 135 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 Phone: (203) 877-8000 Fax: (203) 878-9800 Email: dslossberg@hssklaw.com dcheverie@cheverielaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Melien Brooks Crozier, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue, Room 3261 New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8005 Fax: (212) 310-8007 Email: jennifer.crozier@weil.com - and - Rebecca F. Briggs, Esq. HINCKLEY ALLEN 100 Westminster Street, Suite 1500 Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 274-2000 Email: rbriggs@hinckleyallen.com GOOGLE INC: Court Strikes Plaintiffs' Failsafe Class Definition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L., et al., v. Alphabet Inc. et al. (RE GOOGLE GENERATIVE AI COPYRIGHT LITIGATION), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi K. Lee entered an order granting Google's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' fail-safe class definition, with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs shall amend the class definition within 14 days of the Court's order on Google's pending motion to dismiss. Google was well within its rights to challenge the Plaintiffs' improper class definition by filing a motion to strike. However, the Plaintiffs offered a reasonable stipulation to cure the fail-safe class definition. The Plaintiffs' belated gesture does not excuse their inadequate disclosures during the meet-and-confer process. But the proposed stipulations do suggest that, had Google raised the fail-safe class issue with the Plaintiffs prior to filing the motion to strike, motion practice might have been avoided or narrowed in scope. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. "infringed millions of registered copyrighted works" to "build and train its generative artificial intelligence models." On December 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the consolidated amended complaint. Relevant here, the complaint proposes a new class definition composed of: "All persons or entities who: (1) are domiciled in the United States; (2) own a valid copyright registration for one or more works under the Copyright Act; (3) whose exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. section 106 in their registered works were infringed upon, under 17 U.S.C. section 501, by Google without license or authorization in order to train Google's Generative AI Models during the Class Period; and (4) held such copyright registration prior to Google's unauthorized use." A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJ4ae8 at no extra charge.[CC] GRETCHEN WHITMER: Court Enters Final Judgment in SORA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In accordance with the opinion and order regarding the parties' motions for summary judgment issued on Sept. 27, 2024, and the opinion and order regarding plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment issued on March 26, 2025, Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered final judgment in the case captioned as JOHN DOES et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRETCHEN WHITMER et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10209 (E.D. Mich.). Plaintiffs filed this class action challenging the constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 28.721, et seq, as it was amended in 2021. The Court awards summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Counts I and II, which challenged the retroactive application of SORA 2021. SORA 2021 constitutes punishment and its provisions that retroactively increase reporting requirements and retroactively extend registration terms violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Count III, which challenged the imposition of lengthy and lifetime registration requirements without any individual review or opportunity for removal under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Count IV, which challenged similarly-situated registrants' opportunities to petition for removal from the registry under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Defendants are granted summary judgment on Count V, which challenged the mandatory reporting requirements of Mich. Comp. Laws Secs. 28.724a(1)–(4); 28.725(1)–(3), (7)–(8), (10)–(13); 28.725a(3)–(5), (7)–(8); and 28.727(1) as compelled speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Summary judgment on Count VI is denied as moot because the Court has declared that retroactive extension of registration terms violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution and has permanently enjoined enforcement of SORA against Does A, B, C, D, E, G, Mary Doe, Mary Roe and the pre-2011 ex post facto subclass. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on Count VII as to their claims that: (i) Requiring an individual to register as a sex offender when their offense did not involve a sexual circumstance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (ii) Requiring an individual to register as a sex offender for an offense without a sexual element where there has been no judicial determination that their offense by its nature constitutes a sexual offense violates the Due Process Clause of the of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs and Defendants are both granted summary judgment in part regarding Count VIII - the vagueness issue. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on Count IX, which challenged the requirement that registrants attest that they understand their registration duties under SORA. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on Count X, which challenged the requirement to report electronic mail addresses and to report internet identifiers. Plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on Count XI with respect to their claims that: (i) Defendants' process for registering people with non-Michigan convictions violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (ii) imposing longer or harsher requirements on people with non-Michigan convictions than people with Michigan convictions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because all claims in this case have now been adjudicated, this Judgment is final and the case is deemed closed, subject to post-judgment proceedings permitted under this Judgment or otherwise allowed by law. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0SuzZy from PacerMonitor.com. GROCERY DELIVERY: Hague Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ebtesam Hague v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., d/b/a EveryPlate, Case No. 1:25-cv-03218-DEH-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an amended order of reference to a Magistrate Judge: The action is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purposes: -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions and settlement). -- Dispositive motion (i.e. motion requiring a report and recommendation). Particular Motion: Class certification A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KAxXCo at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: More Time for Arbitration Sur-Response Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR SANTOS and AMANDA CLEMENTS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT RESOLUTION SERVICES, and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-23084-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending: -- the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their sur-response to EIS's Motion to compel arbitration to May 22, 2025; -- EIS's deadline to file its surreply in support of its motion to compel arbitration to May 29, 2025; -- EIS's deadline to file its response to Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification to May 22, 2025, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification to June 5, 2025. On April 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs served EIS with a Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Dan Smith and Request for Production of Documents. After conferring, the parties reached agreement regarding the document production and deposition of Dan Smith. The Plaintiffs' current deadline to file their surresponse to EIS’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is April 24, 2025. EIS's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is April 24, 2025. The parties request this deadline be extended through May 22, 2025. The Plaintiffs' current deadline to file its reply in support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is seven days after EIS files its response. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). The parties request this deadline be extended through June 5, 2025. Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care sector. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uoTz5w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshall, Esq. Alissa Del Riego, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305)358-2800 Facsimile: (305)358-2381 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com - and - Roland Tellis, Esq. Adam Tamburelli, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com atamburelli@baronbudd.com - and - Dennis McCarty, Esq. Jonathan Raburn, Esq. McCARTY & RABURN PLLC 2931 Ridge Road, Suite 101 #504 Rockwall, TX 75032 E-mail: dennismccartylaw@gmail.com jonathan@geauxlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: A.M. Cristina Perez Soto, Esq. Sarah E. Morgado, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. William R. Taylor, Esq. JONES DAY 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 714-9700 E-mail: cperezsoto@jonesday.com smorgado@jonesday.com javogt@jonesday.com wtaylor@jonesday.com HENKEL CORP: Must Show Cause Why Garcia Suit Will Not Be Remanded ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Percy Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders the Defendant to show cause why the lawsuit titled Silvia Garcia v. Henkel Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-03302-PA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by Defendant Henkel Corporation. The Notice of Removal alleges that the Court possesses jurisdiction over the action filed by Plaintiff Silvia Garcia pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 ("CAFA"). In the Notice of Removal, the Defendant alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Specifically, the Defendant estimates that the amount in controversy is $7.5 million. In arriving at this estimate, the Defendant, relying on the amount of sales of the product at issue within California during the class period, alleges that the restitutionary component for the Plaintiff's claims alone places $2 million in controversy. The Defendant, then, alleges that while the Plaintiff does not specifically seek punitive damages, a defendant seeking to remove a case under CAFA can include punitive damages to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement, citing Hawkins v. Kroger Co., 337 F.R.D. 518, 531 (S.D. Cal. 2020). The Defendant then applies a 2:1 ratio of punitive damages to the $2 million in restitutionary damages to estimate the possibility of $4 million in punitive damages, for a total of $6 million in damages, and applies a 25% recovery for attorneys' fees on that amount to arrive at its estimate of $7.5 million as the amount in controversy. Contrary to the Defendant's allegations in its Notice of Removal, its reliance on Hawkins v. Kroger appears misplaced, because in that case, the plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, Judge Anderson says. Here, the Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain a similar prayer or ever seek an award of punitive damages. Without any effort on the Plaintiff's part to seek punitive damages, Judge Anderson points out the Defendant does not appear to have met its burden to establish that it is reasonably possible that it may be liable for the proffered punitive damages amount even if other cases, with claims under the same statute included punitive damages awards at similar ratios, because unlike in this case, where the Plaintiff has not sought an award of punitive damages, the plaintiffs in the other cases included prayers for punitive damages. Without any allegations in the Complaint or any other evidence, such as discovery responses, that the Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damage, the Defendant's inclusion of punitive damages to meet the amount in controversy requirement appears to be deficient because it contains unsupported assumptions and speculation, Judge Anderson opines. For this reason, the Court orders the Defendant to show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Defendant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction has been met. The Defendant's response to this Order to Show Cause will be filed no later than May 5, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nsu2ekb from PacerMonitor.com. HERTZ CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hertz Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARK CAMPLESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00347 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 11, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). On Feb.10, 2024, the Defendant confirmed that personal information belonging to individuals associated with Hertz rental car, Dollar, and Thrifty brands was compromised due to a security incident involving its vendor, Cleo Communications US, LLC. Accordingly, Cleo provides a file transfer platform used by the Defendant. Upon detection, the Defendant engaged third-party cybersecurity specialists to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo's platform during two separate incidents in October 2024 and December 2024. The Defendant then immediately began analyzing the impacted data to determine the scope of the event and identify affected individuals. The data analysis was completed on April 2, 2025. The following types of Private Information may have been affected in the Data Breach: name, contact information, date of birth, driver’s license information, and payment card information, asserts the Court. The Defendant is a leading global vehicle rental company operating under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty brands. The Defendant provides car rental services across North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, The Caribbean, The Middle East, and New Zealand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 834-2699 E-mail: jon@SteinLawFlorida.com - and - Korsinsky, Esq. Melissa Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com HORNBLOWER GROUP: H.L. Sues Over Autistics' Equal Access to Ferry ----------------------------------------------------------------- H.L., by his parent C.L.; C.L., individually and on behalf of H.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HORNBLOWER GROUP, INC. d/b/a NYC FERRY, and NEW YORK CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03019 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the New York City Ferry to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiffs and other persons with autism. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against autistic guests in ways that block them from full access and use of the Ferry. There is no signage announcing accommodation of any kind, and employees have not been trained or instructed to accommodate individuals with autism. Indeed, the Defendants do not have clear protocols in place to accommodate disabilities of any kind, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for all the victims of the Defendants' policies. They also seek declaratory and injunctive relief to correct those policies by forcing the Defendants to comply with all relevant state and federal laws. Hornblower Group, Inc., doing business as NYC Ferry, is a ferry operator, headquartered in San Francisco, California. New York City Economic Development Corporation is a public-benefit corporation, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rony Guldmann, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 661-0052 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 Email: rony@leelitigation.com HOTEL TWO: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL TWO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-21670 (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its property and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Hotel Two, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com HRB DIGITAL LLC: Rios Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRB Digital LLC, et al. The case is styled as Pedro Rios, Jr., Christian Marquez, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. HRB Digital LLC, HRB Tax Group, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03530-AGT (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. HRB Digital LLC -- https://www.hrblock.com/ -- is a Delaware limited liability company with its physical place of business in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. Jessica Meng Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (480) 348-6400 Fax: (877) 500-8781 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com jessica.liu@zimmreed.com HUFFY CORP: Tonka Dump Trucks Have Defective Controllers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TURNESHIA HARTSFIELD and ROBIN DOMRZALSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUFFY CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00137-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, April 30, 2025) is class action lawsuit as individuals who purchased Huffy's Ride on Tonka Dump Trucks for normal household use. Major retail outlets such as Target and Sam's Club sell the Tonka Dump Trucks at their retail stores and online. As such, these Tonka Dump Trucks are distributed, marketed, and sold by Defendant to consumers across the United States. Unfortunately, the Products are defective because the controller on the Tonka Dump Trucks can overheat during its use posing a burn hazard to the children operating the ride on toy1, says the suit. The Recall applies to approximately 23,600 Tonka Dump Trucks that were manufactured and sold between June 2023 through March 2025 at an approximate price of $3002. The date codes for the recalled Products are printed on a label located on the bottom of the toy truck. The Product is defective because the controller of the Tonka Dump Truck can overheat. Other manufacturers formulate, produce, and sell non-defective ride on children's toys with production methods that do not cause the Products to overheat and potentially catch fire, which is evidence that the fire risk inherent with Defendant's Products is demonstrably avoidable, added the suit. Feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials are currently available and were available to Defendants at the time the Products were formulated, designed, and manufactured. The Plaintiffs purchased the Product, while lacking the knowledge that the Product could have its controller overheat creating a fire risk and exposing children to a possible burn hazard. All consumers who purchased the worthless and dangerous Products have suffered losses. As a result of the above losses, the Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies on behalf of themselves and the putative class, the suit alleges. HUFFY CORPORATION is a supplier of bicycles with headquarters in Dayton, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 696-7394 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 E-mail: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Andrew Baker, Esq. FORTHCOMING) POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com IBOTTA INC: Brodiski Files Suit in D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ibotta, Inc. The case is styled as Jesika Brodiski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ibotta, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01313 (D. Colo., April 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Ibotta, Inc. -- https://home.ibotta.com/ -- is an American mobile technology company headquartered in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com INDEED LABORATORIES: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. INDEED LABORATORIES USA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03350 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://indeedlabs.com/ including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. INDEED LABORATORIES USA INC., operates the Indeed Labs online retail store, as well as the Indeed Labs interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Seeks to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v. INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, INC., CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC. and CAROLINA SERVICES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs seek leave to file a renewed certification motion that satisfies the standards articulated by the Fourth Circuit by proposing: (1) a class definition based on class members' ability to rely on common evidence instead of a list of class members; and (2) an alternative class of all manufacturer payers that excludes the 2,533 manufacturers that the Court has already determined were uninjured. Inmar develops software for health care sector. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zCqLhY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Low, Esq. Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com lgrunert@kotchen.com - and - Kearns Davis, Esq. BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD LLP 230 North Elm Street 2000 Renaissance Plaza Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 373-8850 Facsimile: (336) 378-1001 E-mail: kdavis@brookspierce.com INNOVATIVE: Birmingham Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Giraudon Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland will grant the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System's motion to appoint counsel and for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned ALAIN GIRAUDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-GLR (D. Md.). This matter is before the Court on: (1) the Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, filed by Yolanda Castaneda; (2) the Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, filed by the Utility Board Retirement System City of Key West; (3) the Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, filed by Dr. Richard A. Blocker and Kelly R. Johnson; and (4) the Motion to Appoint Counsel and for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, filed by City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. On Jan. 17, 2025, Alain Giraudon filed a securities class action complaint on behalf of himself and others who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. between Feb. 27, 2024 and Dec. 19, 2024. The Complaint alleges that IIPR, a Real Estate Investment Trust violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose its declining revenues. This action is subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Because the PSLRA does not define the proper way to determine which movant has the largest financial interest in the relief sought, many courts apply a test that includes the following four factors: (1) the number of shares purchased; (2) the number of net shares purchased; (3) the total net funds expended by the plaintiffs during the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered by the plaintiffs. According to the Court, Birmingham has suffered the largest loss at approximately $257,792. As to the other factors, during the class period, Birmingham purchased 5,538 total shares of IIPR, retained 5,191 shares, and expended approximately $672,257 on its purchases of IIPR securities during the class period. The other movants suffered losses of $183,675 and $129,046. Blocker and Johnson also state that they purchased 10,480 shares of IIPR securities during the class period. Because courts consider the approximate losses suffered by the movant to be the most important determining factor, the Court finds that Birmingham's suffered losses outweigh the higher number of shares owned by Blocker and Johnson. Accordingly, the Court finds that Birmingham has the largest financial interest. The Court finds Birmingham's claims are typical of the class, and Birmingham is an adequate class representative. Birmingham shares the same claims with the other class members. Birmingham alleges, as do each of the other class members, that it acquired IIRP securities during the class period, that the prices of those securities were artificially inflated by IIRP's alleged misrepresentations and omissions, and that it suffered losses due to these statements. Because of Birmingham's large financial loss, it has a significant interest in vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the class. Birmingham will benefit from the same relief as other class members. There are no allegations of conflicts with other class members. Accordingly, Birmingham is entitled to a presumption that it is the most adequate lead plaintiff, the Court concludes. The competing movants for lead plaintiff have not rebutted this presumption. The Court will grant Birmingham's Motion and will deny Castaneda, Key West, and Blocker and Johnson's Motions. Birmingham has selected the law firm of Scott + Scott as lead counsel. Accordingly, Scott + Scott will be approved as lead counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bXyaOb from PacerMonitor.com. INTERNATIONAL COURT: Court Junks Emrit Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD SATISH EMRIT, V. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN HAGUE, NETHERLANDS, ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-00724-SM-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order that the Plaintiff's application to proceed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs is denied. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). -- The Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana shall refuse any filing of a petition or complaint, motion, or other pleading that is accompanied by an application for leave to file or proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Satish Emrit, except for pleadings that contain allegations of constitutional deprivation by reason of physical harm or threats to Satish's person. -- The Plaintiff's Complaint is incoherent, at best, and more appropriately considered "entirely fanciful" or delusional. The Court recognizes that the Plaintiff has filed hundreds of lawsuits in districts throughout the country. On April 11, 2025, Plaintiff, "Presidential Candidate Number P 60005535 'also known as' (aka) Ronald Satish Emrit, & Presidential Committee/Political Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America" filed five complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The Plaintiff already has two cases pending in this Court that were filed earlier this year and filed at least six cases in this Court within the last two years, which were either transferred to other federal district courts or dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, established in 1945. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X89Ra4 at no extra charge.[CC] INVOICE CLOUD INC: Ladner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Invoice Cloud Inc. The case is styled as Richard Ladner, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Invoice Cloud Inc., Case No. CACE25006163 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 27, 2025). Invoice Cloud -- https://invoicecloud.net/ -- provides simple online electronic bill payment solutions that improve customer engagement and increase e-payment adoption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin L. Lewis, Esq. KL LAW, PLLC 110 SE 6th St., Floor 17 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Phone: (954) 551-2295 Email: service@kevinlewislaw.com JAMES LEBLANC: Bid for More Time to Qualify Experts Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS, ET AL., V. JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson entered an order denying the joint motion to allot additional time to qualify experts, which requests an extension often minutes, per side, for the examinations of Dr. Susi Vasallo, Dr. Evelynn Hammonds, Dr. Joshua Sbicca, and Dr. Carl Keldie. The Court will address issues regarding the qualification of the above-mentioned experts at the Class Certification hearing scheduled to begin on April 22, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bUHYne at no extra charge.[CC] JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Cossette Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN COSSETTE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex., April 29, 2025) alleges that Jani-King failed to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information. On or around April 16, 2025, Jani-King announced its systems were impacted by a data breach. On an undisclosed date, Jani-King discovered a "security event" affecting its internal systems. As a result of Jani-King's alleged negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected email accounts and stole the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. The Plaintiff and the Class will face an imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for the rest of their lives because Jani-King failed to protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information, allowing a massive and preventable Data Breach to occur, asserts the suit. Jani-King is a commercial cleaning company franchise with over 120 support offices spread across 10 countries with more than 6,600 franchisees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Dalmacio Sues Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWIN DALMACIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01040-K (N.D. Tex., April 28, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current and former franchisees and their employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach in or about November 26, 2024, and December 21, 2024 (Data Breach). Accordingly, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems, thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former franchisees' and their employees' PII. The Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Before this Data Breach, Defendant's current and former franchisees and their employees' PII was held private but now, their PII is forever exposed and unsecure, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a commercial cleaning franchise company that was established in 1969. It boasts over 120 support offices spread across 10 counties, with more than 6,600 franchisees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com KASEYA HOLDINGS: W.D. Texas Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit captioned ANGELO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, and all Other Similarly Situated Employees, Plaintiff v. KASEYA HOLDINGS, INC., KASEYA INC., and DATTO HOLDING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00752-DAE (W.D. Tex.). Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. On Sept. 13, 2024, Defendants Kaseya Holdings, Inc., Kaseya Inc., and Datto Holding Corp. (collectively, "Kaseya" or "Defendants") filed their Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On Sept. 26, 2024, Plaintiff Angelo Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all Others Similarly Situated Employees, filed his response in opposition to the motion. On Oct. 3, 2024, the Defendants filed their reply. On March 31, 2025, Judge Lane submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the Partial Motion to Dismiss. The parties did not file objections to the Report. The Court agrees with Judge Lane's recitation of the facts and incorporates them in full. The parties include the Plaintiff, who worked for Kaseya from January 2022 until his termination as a Principal Solutions Engineer. The Defendants include Kaseya Holdings, Inc., Kaseya Inc., and Datto Holding Corp. Defendant Kaseya Inc. was terminated from the lawsuit on Aug. 30, 2024. Rodriguez alleges that on April 2, 2024, Rodriguez, his team, and hundreds of other employees out of the Miami office were terminated without any advanced warning. The Plaintiff brings this employment discrimination class action against Kaseya, asserting claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq., the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 ("OWBPA"), and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), 29 U.S.C. Section 2101, et seq. The Plaintiff purports to bring the WARN Act Claim on behalf of himself and those similarly situated. On Aug. 13, 2024, Kaseya moved to dismiss Rodriguez's original complaint. The motion was mooted after Rodriguez filed his Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Aug. 30, 2024. The Defendants now move to dismiss Rodriguez's OWBPA and WARN claims in its Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and do not contest Rodriguez's ADEA and Texas Labor Code claims. After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lane's 12(b)(6) analysis is reasonable and absent of clear error. In the Report, Judge Lane concluded that Rodriguez does not have standing to bring his OWBPA claim and it must be dismissed without prejudice. Judge Lane reasoned that because Rodriguez did not sign the Separation Agreement and Release of All Claims ("Release") that Kaseya provided to employees being terminated on or about April 2, 2024, he has not suffered a "concrete and particularized" injury that is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" under the OWBPA. The Court agrees that Rodriguez is currently exercising his full legal right to sue and has not been limited in any way or prevented from doing so, except by the exhaustion requirements pertaining to his other claims. Next, Judge Lane concluded that Rodriguez's allegations are sufficiently pleaded to state a claim under the WARN Act and that any factual disputes are better left for later stages of the litigation. Judge Lane also found that Rodriguez plausibly alleged a mass layoff occurred at Kaseya's Miami site in April 2024 and that Miami was Rodriguez's single site of employment. Moreover, to the extent there is any factual dispute as to the "true mass layoff numbers," the evidentiary support necessary to negate Rodriguez's allegations would be best reviewed at the summary judgment stage. For these reasons, the Court adopts United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane's Report and Recommendation in full as the opinion of this Court. The Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted in part with respect to Rodriguez's OWBPA claim, which should be dismissed without prejudice, and denied in part with respect to Rodriguez's WARN Act Claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhhuurz from PacerMonitor.com. KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Carl Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB CARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC. d/b/a KELLY BENEFITS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01354 (D. Md., April 28, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. According to the complaint, Kelly Benefits recently detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Kelly Benefits determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files. The investigation further determined that the Data Breach exposed the personal information of 263,893 individuals. According to Kelly Benefits, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a provider of benefits administration and technology, broker and consulting services, payroll solutions and other tools.[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 - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Conner Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH CONNER and TURQUOISE AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01356 (D. Md., April 28, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Accordingly, Kelly Benefits recently detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Kelly Benefits determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files (the Data Breach). The investigation further determined that the Data Breach exposed the personal information of 263,893 individuals. According to Kelly Benefits, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, tax ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a provider of benefits administration and technology, broker and consulting services, payroll solutions and other tools.[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 - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Awarded $83,460.50 in Fees in Dakus Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KANDUS DAKUS Plaintiff, v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V., Defendant, v. SPENCER SHEEHAN, Respondent, Case No. 22-cv-07962-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lehrburger to award $80,160.00 in attorney fees and $3,300.50 in costs to Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V. as sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, Spencer Sheehan. On Sept. 17, 2022, Plaintiff Kandus Dakus filed this putative class action alleging Defendant KLM had falsely advertised its commitment to climate goals. After it became apparent that the complaint contained false allegations, the Court dismissed the suit and awarded sanctions against Sheehan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 based on his decision to continue prosecuting the case after KLM’s motion to dismiss put him on notice of the false allegations in the complaint. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for calculation of the attorney fees and costs to be paid as sanctions by Sheehan to KLM. Judge Lehrburger then issued a report and recommendation, which recommended awarding $80,160.00 in attorney fees and $3,300.50 in costs to KLM. Neither party objected to the report. The Court finds no error and thus adopts the report in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for KLM in the amount of $83,460.50 and close this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i0vilr from PacerMonitor.com. LADY JANE’S: Court Affirms Dismissal of Hair Stylists' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Jeffrey S. Sutton, Eugene E. Siler, Jr. and Helene N. White of the United States Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing the class action complaint filed by hair stylists against Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men in favor of arbitration. Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men is a hair salon. Each stylist, the salon claims, is her own boss, an independent contractor in legal parlance. That relationship, the salon says, allows it to avoid the obligations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum-wage and overtime-pay requirements, which apply to employees, not independent contractors. Several stylists disagreed. They filed a class action complaint against the salon in federal court under the Act and several state laws. Lady Jane's moved to dismiss the lawsuit. Invoking the arbitration clause in the Independent Contractor Agreement with each stylist, Lady Jane's argued that the claims must proceed before the AAA, formally known as the American Arbitration Association. The stylists responded that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was unconscionably costly and would require them to pay arbitration costs that exceed their yearly income. The district court agreed. At the same time, however, it enforced the severability clause in the contract, severing the contract's reference to the Commercial Arbitration Rules, which meant that the AAA arbitration would default to the less costly rules for employment and independent contractor disputes. With the offending clause out of the way, the court enforced the rest of the arbitration agreement and granted Lady Jane's motion to dismiss. As the contract confirms, the stylists agreed to be bound by a severability clause if a provision of the contract became unenforceable. On top of that, the only change to this contract helps them. Remember, they agreed to arbitrate the dispute with the AAA. All that happened was that the district court removed the less favorable (and costly) Commercial Rules -- rules that would have made arbitration cost prohibitive. The stylists, relatedly, claim that the district court impermissibly reformed the contract and did so without the customary predicate for a reformation: mutual mistake. The Circuit Judges say, "The district court did not change the scope or meaning of 'Commercial Arbitration Rules' to cure a mutual mistake. It instead declined to enforce this cost-shifting clause because it was unconscionably burdensome to the stylists." The appeals case is JAMIE GAVIN; JHAMYA WINTERS; TIFFANIE WOLF; MELISSA SPEAKER; JAMIE LINDQUIST; CHLOE KERTESZ; KIM BURNS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; LADY JANE'S CLEARWATER FL, LLC; LADY JANE'S MOORE OK, LLC; LADY JANE'S SUNSET HILLS MO, LLC; CHAD JOHNSON; TIM MCCOLLUM; JESSE DHILLON; ALICIA BUNCH; JOHN DOES 1–10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1–10, Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-1509 (6th Cir.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WzvJPG Attorneys for Appellants: Jessica Garland, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 E-mail: jessie@guptawessler.com - and - Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com - and - Andy Biller, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE LLC, 4200 Regent St, #200 Columbus, OH 43219-6229 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com - and - Laura Farmwald, , Esq. Emily Hubbard, , Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd, Ste 515, Cincinnati OH 45236-295 E-mail: lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com Attorneys for Appellee: Nicole S. LeFave, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Andrew Klaben-Finegold, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2600 Detroit, Michigan 48226-3416 E-mail: nlefave@littler.com npioch@littler.com aklaben@littler.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Detergents Contained Harmful Bacteria, Gontz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LINDSAY GONTZ, an individual v. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-03588 (April 30, 2025) is a class action alleging that Laundress manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, advertised, and sold detergents and home and personal care products that contained harmful bacteria. In or around 2019, Plaintiff, who was a member of the subscription service FabFitFun, received a bottle of The Laundress Signature Detergent (Lot No. F6197-9177) in her monthly subscription box. She began using the detergent primarily for handwashing delicate items, but did use the detergent in her washing machine once as well. In April 2022 and following Plaintiff's use of The Laundress detergent, Plaintiff became ill due to fluid drainage in her left breast. Doctors diagnosed her with a bacterial infection, asserts the suit. On December 1, 2022, the Laundress, in connection with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled more than 8 million The Laundress laundry and household cleaning products due to contamination with harmful bacteria, including, inter alia, Klebsiella aerogenes, Burkholderia cepacian complex, and pseudomonas -- the same bacteria Plaintiff had become infected with. Laundress manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed, advertised, and sold the contaminated detergents and cleaning products with harmful bacteria in them, making them inherently dangerous to consumers, including the Plaintiff in this case, says the suit. THE LAUNDRESS, LLC is a consumer goods, retail, and cleaning products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Adam J. Kress, Esq. Anna R. Rick, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: akress@johnsonbecker.com arick@johnsonbecker.com LEGACY TOUCH: Court Approves Confidentiality Order in Weiner Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois signed the Agreed Confidentiality Order filed in the lawsuit styled LAUREN WEINER and DEBORAH PEARLMAN, each individually and as personal representatives of the estates of Mathew Silberman and Jamie Draper, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGACY TOUCH, INC.; GLUECKERT FUNERAL HOME, LTD.; and KRISTAN FUNERAL HOME P.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01827-DWD (S.D. Ill.). The parties to this Agreed Confidentiality Order have agreed to the terms of this Order. The Agreed Confidentiality Order provides that all materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery, including initial disclosures, information derived from subpoenas, responses to discovery requests, deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom will be subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information as defined here. This Order is subject to the Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of procedure and calculation of time periods. As used in this Order, "Confidential Information" means information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL-SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" by the Designating Party that falls within one or more of the following categories: (a) information prohibited from disclosure by statute; (b) information that reveals trade secrets; (c) research, technical, commercial, business, corporate or financial information that the Designating Party has maintained as confidential; (d) medical information concerning any individual; (e) personal identity information; (f) income tax returns (including attached schedules and forms), W-2 forms and 1099 forms; or (g) personnel or employment records of a person who is not a party to the case. A Designating Party may designate a document as Confidential Information for protection under this Order by placing or affixing the words "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" on the document and on all copies in a manner that will not interfere with the legibility of the document. According to the Agreed Confidentiality Order, unless all parties agree on the record at the time the deposition testimony is taken, all deposition testimony taken in this case will be treated as Confidential Information until the expiration of the following: No later than the fourteenth day after the transcript is delivered to any party or the witness, and in no event later than 60 days after the testimony was given. The Agreed Confidentiality Order also provides, among other things, that Confidential Information will not be used or disclosed by the parties, counsel for the parties or any other persons identified in subparagraph (b) for any purpose whatsoever other than in this litigation, including any appeal thereof. The parties and counsel for the parties will not disclose or permit the disclosure of any Confidential Information to any third person or entity except as set forth here. A full-text copy of the Court's Agreed Confidentiality Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ym399r5h from PacerMonitor.com. LIFEBRIDGE NORTH: Hanscom Files Class Suit in Mass. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- Lifebridge North Shore, a halfway house in Salem, Massachusetts, is facing a class action lawsuit. The suit, filed last filed last March 31, 2025, seeks equitable remedies from the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct. It is styled as David Hanscom, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lifebridge North Shore, Case No. 2577CV00328 (Mass. Super., Essex Cty.). [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LINKEDIN CORP: Intercepted Customers' Communications, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03737 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who filled out forms on the Covered California website, www.coveredca.com. Unbeknownst to Website visitors, software owned by the Defendant LinkedIn, the LinkedIn Insight Tag ("LinkedIn Pixel") and software owned by Defendant Google, the Google Analytics tracking code ("Google Pixel") is installed on the Covered California website -- enabling Defendants to intercept sensitive and confidential communications of Covered California customers. Accordingly, Covered California is California's official health insurance marketplace, established to help residents find and afford health insurance plans. It offers a way to compare and purchase plans from various health insurance companies. LinkedIn and Google intentionally intercepted sensitive and confidential communications between Covered California and its customers. LinkedIn and Google failed to receive consent for these interceptions. To the contrary, LinkedIn and Google engaged in conduct that expressly contravened their own terms and representations, asserts the Court. LinkedIn develops, owns, and operates a professional network with more than 1 billion members in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide. Google is a multinational technology company best known for its internet-related products and services, including its search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, 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 jwilner@bursor.com LIVE OAK: Deburst Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY DEBURST, individually on behalf of herself and others similiarly situated v. LIVE OAK CAREGIVERS, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-02399-AT (N.D. Ga., April 30, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional and equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. DeBurst worked for Live Oak from Jan. 19, 2019, through February 22, 2025. Throughout her employment Live Oak was an hourly paid Certified Nursing Assistant or CNA, paid an hourly wage for all hours worked. DeBurst represents a collective of similarly situated workers under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The "FLSA Collective" is defined as: "All current or former hourly CNA employees of Live Oak who worked in the United States at any time, from April 29, 2025, until the date of entry of judgment in this case, who elect to file a consent to join in this case." Live Oak provides home health care services throughout the greater Atlanta and Athens, Georgia and Chattanooga, Tennessee areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road., Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com LUCERO AG: Ortiz, et al. Can Move Default for Default Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations in the case captioned as AZUCENA ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUCERO AG SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01319-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.). Azucena Ortiz, Gustavo Meza, and Dominga Espinoza filed this putative class action on Sept. 5, 2023, mostly alleging violations of California state labor laws. On March 24, 2025, because defendant Lucero Ag Services, Inc. is no longer represented by counsel and has failed to comply with court orders and defend this case, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to strike Lucero Ag Services' Answer, direct the Clerk of Court to enter a default against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), and permit Plaintiffs to move for default judgment against this defendant. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vmSykU from PacerMonitor.com. MARLY BUILDING: Huerta Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leonel Flores Huerta, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. Marly Building Supply Corp. (Brooklyn), Marly Building Supply Corp., and Kim K. Ma individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-03495 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) is a collective and class action lawsuit brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime and violations of wage notice and statement requirements. Plaintiff Huerta is an individual who resides in the County of Bronx, New York. He was employed by the Defendants as a Construction Helper from 1998 until October 23, 2023. Marly Building Supply distributes a broad range of masonry materials and has established itself as one of the largest distributors of face bricks in New York City, demonstrating substantial business operations and a wide scope of activity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline Howard, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2251 Facsimile: (718) 679-9660 E-mail: MHoward@SaccoFillas.com MARYLAND: Loses Bid to Dismiss Connor, et al. ADA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the motion filed by Maryland Department of Health and MDH Secretary Laura Herrera Scott to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01423-MJM (D. Md.). The plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is granted. MDH is the designated state survey agency for the State of Maryland responsible for certifying nursing facilities in Maryland to receive funding through participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and is responsible for specific oversight and enforcement functions imposed by the Nursing Home Reform Act. Plaintiffs Irene Connor, Michael Nevin, Alex Noonan, Herman Dressel, and Richard Hollman seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act for alleged failures to conduct statutorily mandated annual surveys and investigate complaints within statutorily prescribed time frames. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of residents of nursing facilities who have disabilities with mobility impairment, and who live in nursing facilities that operate under the oversight authority of the MDH. Plaintiffs and members of the putative class are mobility-impaired residents of Medicaidand Medicare-participating nursing facilities in Maryland. Motion to Dismiss Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction because the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to confer Plaintiffs' standing to bring suit. The Court finds Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to show that the "concrete interest" they have in the rights and quality of services protected by the NHRA has been injured and remains under threat by MDH's failure to satisfy its oversight and enforcement obligations under the statute and its implementing regulations. The injury created by MDH's procedural failures is connected to a variety of concrete physical, social, and emotional harms and risks identified in the Complaint for each of the named Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs' claim to injury based on MDH's failure to meet its oversight and enforcement obligations respecting nursing facilities in Maryland is sufficiently concrete and particularized to state an injury in fact for purposes of standing, the Court concludes. In sum, at this early stage of the case, the Court finds the Complaint sufficient to satisfy the requirements of standing. Thus, Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) shall be denied. The Court finds the Complaint in this case states plausible methods-of-administration claims under the ADA Title II and RA Section 504. The issue is whether Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendants have utilized methods of administration that, in effect, defeat or impair the foregoing objectives and thereby deny Plaintiffs, as individuals with disabilities, the benefits of MDH's oversight and enforcement activities. The Court finds the Complaint to be sufficient to state such a claim. Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be denied. Plaintiffs allege that MDH's failure to satisfy its statutory oversight and enforcement duties has uniquely severe impacts on mobility-impaired nursing facility residents, imposing upon them higher levels of harm and special injuries not suffered by residents who do not have mobility impairments. Thus, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants' methods of administering their oversight functions, whether by commission or omission, have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity's program with respect to individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.130(b)(3)(ii), the Court finds. The Court is persuaded that Sec. 35.130(b)(3) applies to MDH's oversight of nursing facilities in Maryland and forbids MDH from methods of administering its oversight functions in ways that subject mobility-impaired residents to disparate harms and risks based on their disabilities. Class Certification To be certified as a class under Rule 23, Plaintiffs must show that the class is numerous, the injuries are common to all class members, the claims alleged are typical of all class members, and the class representatives and their attorneys can adequately represent the entire class. In this case, Plaintiffs propose a class of at least 9,000 mobility-impaired individuals residing in 222 nursing facilities in Maryland. Defendants concede that Plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). According to the Court, the injury Plaintiffs claim is common to the entire class is deprivation of MDH's oversight and enforcement functions, and the injunctive relief they seek targets that deprivation by requiring Defendants to conduct statutorily mandated oversight and enforcement activities. The Court finds that commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied in this case. The Court finds Plaintiffs have established a "sufficient relationship" between the injury they assert and conduct by Defendants that affect the proposed class as a whole, such that Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those among class members. Named plaintiffs Irene Connor, Michael Nevin, Alex Noonan, and Richard Hollman, and all proposed class members are mobility-impaired residents of nursing facilities in Maryland subject to oversight from MDH. Given their mobility impairments, Plaintiffs and all class members share a "risk of common complications" that is created and aggravated by MDH's failure to provide statutorily required oversight of these nursing facilities and enforce standards imposed by state and federal law. Based on her experience and an examination of the named Plaintiffs' medical records, Marie Boltz, Ph.D, RN, GNP-BC opines that that the harms and risks "experienced by Plaintiffs are typical of mobility impaired residents." The Court finds that the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is met in the instant case. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' interests in this litigation are not opposed to the interests of the proposed class. The Court is satisfied, and has no reason to doubt, that Plaintiffs "will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the entire class. Defendants' arguments that the class members' injuries are too diverse for Plaintiffs to represent them adequately fail for the same reasons that argument fails to rebut commonality and typicality. Accordingly, the Court finds that the adequacy-of-representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is met in this case. The Court finds that all Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) conditions for class certification are met in this case. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NyGsF5 from PacerMonitor.com. MAURI CANTELI: Fernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MARTA R. FERNANDEZ v. MAURI CANTELI CORP, a/k/a ANTONIO CANTELI HOME, ANTONIO CANTELI, and ARMANDO MAURI, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-21917 (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2025) is a collective complaint seeking to recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages, overtime hours, and retaliatory constructive discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Fernandez is a resident of Dade County, Florida. She is a covered employee for purposes of the Act. The Defendant was and is engaged in interstate commerce. Individual Defendants Antonio Canteli and Armando Mauri were and are now the owners/partners/officers/and administrators of Antonio Canteli Home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MDL 3149: Greci v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Greci, et al v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00208-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Greci 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 Greci 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=6KlCHp at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Griffin v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Griffin v. Powerschool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00206-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Griffin 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 Griffin 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=1EiYN5 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Habbal v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Habbal, et al., v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00173-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Habbal 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 Habbal 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=G6ubSb at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Keigley v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keigley v. PowerSchool Group LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00210-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Keigley 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 Keigley 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=3m8n6o at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Kinney v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kinney v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00098-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Kinney 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 Kinney 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. 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=wPod3l at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL'S MANAGEMENT-AFFORDABLE: Court Stays 2nd Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Damare v. Michael's Management-Affordable, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00554 (N.D. Ind., Filed July 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay second motion for class certification. -- The Court stays briefing on the Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Certify Class. -- After the Court resolves Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement, the Court will set a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs Second Motion to Certify Class. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC] MOBILE MEDIC: Oliver Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDIN OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying collective action and approving the Proposed Notice. The Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") allegations pertain to how Mobile Medic calculated its current and former employees "regular rate of pay" and whether its calculations resulted in the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees being undercompensated for their overtime hours worked. More than two hundred current and former employees of Mobile Medic earned retention bonuses or sign on bonuses in weeks they worked more than 40 hours. Mobile Medic provides emergency medical systems services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11Yube at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Court Closes Member Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants in member case 24cv1390 in In Re Mobileye Global Securities Litigation and close the case for reasons stated in the Opinion and Order of April 15, 2025. A Case Management Order of July 12, 2024 consolidated case numbers 24cv310 and 24cv1390, appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the class action brought against Mobileye Global, Inc., and directed all future pleadings filed in the action to bear the case number 24cv310. An Opinion and Order of April 15, 2025 granted the defendants' Dec. 20, 2024 motion to dismiss in 24cv310 and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiEju7 from PacerMonitor.com. MORGAN & MORGAN: S.D. Georgia Stays Discovery in Gugliuzza Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division, grants the Defendants' motion to stay discovery in the lawsuit entitled MARK GUGLIUZZA, Plaintiff v. MORGAN & MORGAN, JACKSONVILLE PLLC d/b/a MORGAN & MORGAN JACKSONVILLE, LLC, and SETH DIAMOND, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00064-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.). The Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery, asking the Court to stay all deadlines in this case until resolution of the pending motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff filed a Response, opposing the Defendants' Motion. The Plaintiff originally filed his Complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of Chatham County. The Defendants removed this case to federal court on March 20, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants represented him in a previous motor vehicle accident claim. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants breached their duty to adhere to the standard of care generally employed in the legal profession and this constitutes professional negligence. The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty owed to him and members of the putative class. The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration on March 21, 2025. They filed this Motion to Stay Discovery on March 26, 2025. Judge Cheesbro finds that the Defendants have met their burden in showing a stay is appropriate. While the ultimate issue raised in the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is for the District Judge to decide, it is clear to Judge Cheesbro that the Defendants' motion is sufficiently credible to justify a stay. The Defendants state the parties signed a representation agreement when the Plaintiff retained the Defendants to represent him in connection with a January 2021 motor vehicle accident. The Defendants argue the Plaintiff agreed when he signed his representation agreement to arbitrate each of the claims raised now in his Complaint. Judge Cheesbro opines that the evidence and arguments in favor of compelling arbitration are sufficiently credible to justify the stay. Additionally, a ruling on the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration could, potentially, displace the case from the Court and into the arbitral forum. Staying discovery in these circumstances is appropriate because, if the District Judge determines arbitration is appropriate, the Plaintiff should not receive the benefit of discovery that would not have been available to him otherwise, Judge Cheesbro points out. Judge Cheesbro finds the Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to discovery on informed consent at this time; has not demonstrated any discovery related to class claims is necessary at this point as opposed to after resolution of the motion to compel; and has not shown any prejudice to himself or the proposed class members arising from a stay. Ultimately, Judge Cheesbro points out, a stay of these proceedings would be an efficient use of judicial resources, and that resolving the issue of arbitrability first will ensure an efficient resolution of this matter. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhd83fnv from PacerMonitor.com. NESHAMINY SW: Loses Bid to Dismiss Melecio FLSA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Kelley B. Hodge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned as ALEXA ONATE MELECIO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NESHAMINY SW, LLC, doing business as "SALADWORKS," and OHRAN G. VELI, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-01608 (E.D. Pa.). Alexa Onate Melecio brings this suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Neshaminy SW, LLC, d/b/a "SaladWorks", and Ohran G. Veli for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay assistant managers overtime for hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek. Plaintiff was employed as an assistant manager by Defendants from July 2021 to December 2023 at the Langhorne, PA location. Defendants maintain and operate SaladWorks franchises which provide food and beverages to customers. Defendant Veli is the owner of Defendant Neshaminy SW LLC. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for: (1) failure to satisfy the standard for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA, and (2) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Defendants, in the present case, argue that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead conditional certification and, as a result, Plaintiff's FLSA collective action must be dismissed. They further argue that Plaintiff failed to provide factual support in the form of affidavits, declarations, deposition testimony, or other supporting documents. Plaintiff argues that the argument that Defendants assert is premature. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that, at this time, making a determination on conditional certification would be premature. Defendants' only argument regarding the insufficiency of the collective action -- aside from claiming Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidentiary support which the Court has already deemed unnecessary -- is that there can be no class because Plaintiff was the only assistant manager at the SaladWorks location in Langhorne, PA, and that the Langhorne location is the only location under Defendant Neshaminy's ownership. As a result, Defendant's arguments are unavailing that Plaintiff would not be able to satisfy conditional certification of a class no matter the amount of time given, or discovery conducted (when they choose to move for certification). As a result, Defendant's Motion is denied as to the Plaintiff's perceived inability by the Defendants to satisfy the standard for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA. Defendants also argue that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims because the Court will have to address a complex state law issue. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Court would need to determine whether Plaintiff, the only assistant manager at the Langhorne location, can bring forth a claim against any other Saladworks locations that are not under Defendant Neshaminy SW, LLC's ownership. They contend that because the remedies available under Plaintiff's state law claims differ from those available under the FLSA, that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Defendants assert that the distinction between FLSA opt-in collective actions and state law opt-out collective actions would therefore present a disparity in the number of similarly situated plaintiffs so great as to transform the action to a substantial degree. The Court finds the distinction between opt-in/opt-out class functions, on its own, is not enough to defeat supplemental jurisdiction as the Third Circuit has held that the FLSA opt-in procedure is not inherently incompatible with state-law opt-out class actions. The Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HQAwVz from PacerMonitor.com. NESTLE: Summary Judgment Bid in Horti, et al. Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied part Nestle HealthCare Nutrition, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the case Horti et al. v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (In Re: Nestle Boost Nutritional Drink Litigation), Case No. 21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Bruce Horti, Sandra George, and Steven Owen filed a putative class action on behalf of consumers who purchased two of defendant Nestle HealthCare Nutrition, Inc.'s products -- Boost Glucose Control and Boost Glucose Control High Protein -- alleging the representations that the Products control glucose and are designed for diabetics are deceptive. Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the three named plaintiffs. Ms. George and Mr. Horti, on behalf of a proposed California subclass, allege violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Mr. Owen, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class or in the alternative, a proposed New Jersey subclass, alleges a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs also allege unjust enrichment and breach of express and implied warranties. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground Plaintiffs cannot establish either deception or a resulting injury based on the Boost labeling because their own sworn testimony makes clear that, contrary to the allegations in their complaint, they were neither deceived nor harmed by those labels. Defendant argues Ms. George cannot establish a viable claim for deception because: (1) she continued to purchase Boost Glucose Control for years after filing suit, and (2) the product's impact on her blood sugar levels comported with her understanding of the label statements. The Court finds Ms. George lacks statutory standing to challenge the alleged misrepresentations because undisputed evidence establishes she did not rely on them. According to the Court, Ms. George bought Boost Glucose Control after learning about the allegedly deceptive statements demonstrates as a matter of law she did not rely on the challenged statements or else did not find them material and therefore suffered no injury. Thus, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant as to Ms. George. Defendant argues Plaintiffs failed to establish Mr. Horti looked at the labels, so they are precluded from arguing he was deceived by the labels. Defendant also moves for summary judgment on the ground Mr. Horti was not deceived, as he understood exactly what the Boost drinks would do to his blood sugar before he drank them. It further argues Mr. Horti cannot state a claim for deception because he ignored key context on the label. The Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Horti. However, because there is no evidence Mr. Horti saw "helps manage blood sugar" on the label when be bought it, Mr. Horti is limited to challenging the "Boost Glucose Control" and "designed for people with diabetes" representations. Defendant contends Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief fall flat because all three Plaintiffs admit they have no plans to buy Boost again in the future. Plaintiffs concede judgment on the Injunctive Relief claims. The Court grants Defendant's summary judgment motion as to Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. 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. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5vl1wj from PacerMonitor.com. NORDSTROM INC: Bid to Seal Portions of Gilbert Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to provisionally seal portions of the verified stockholder class action complaint captioned as ERIC GILBERT, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC.; NAVY ACQUISITION CO., INC.; NORSE HOLDINGS, INC.; ERIK B. NORDSTROM; PETER E. NORDSTROM; JAMES L. DONALD; KIRSTEN A. GREEN; GLENDA G. MCNEAL; AMIE THUENER O’TOOLE; GUY B. PERSAUD; ERIC D. SPRUNK; BRADLEY D. TILDEN; MARK J. TRITTON; ATTICUS N. TYSEN; EL PUERTO DE LIVERPOOL S.A.B. DE C.V., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00568-JHC (W.D. Wash.). The class action lawsuit challenges an unfair and unlawful going-private merger orchestrated by insiders of Nordstrom to acquire the Company at an inadequate price of $24.25 per share. Accordingly, through this action, Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment that the merger violates the Anti-Takeover Statute, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger unless and until it complies with the Anti-Takeover Statute's voting requirements, findings that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, and an award of damages to the Class and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs, as appropriate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a common stockholder of Nordstrom. Nordstrom, Inc. is a Washington corporation that operates as a department store chain under the banners "Nordstrom" and "Nordstrom Rack." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLI2NE from PacerMonitor.com. NORDSTROM INC: Time to Answer Gilbert Suit Extended for 60 Days --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, signs the Stipulation and Order to extend time to answer or respond to verified stockholder class action complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned ERIC GILBERT, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC.; NAVY ACQUISITION CO., INC.; NORSE HOLDINGS, INC.; ERIK B. NORDSTROM; PETER E. NORDSTROM; JAMES L. DONALD; KIRSTEN A. GREEN; GLENDA G. MCNEAL; AMIE THUENER O'TOOLE; GUY B. PERSAUD; ERIC D. SPRUNK; BRADLEY D. TILDEN; MARK J. TRITTON; ATTICUS N. TYSEN; EL PUERTO DE LIVERPOOL S.A.B. DE C.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00568-JHC (W.D. Wash.). On March 31, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint in the matter. In light of the dates of service of the Complaint and the related summonses, the deadlines for the Defendants, who have been served to answer or move to dismiss the Complaint, range from April 23, 2025, to April 29, 2025. The Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction and the Court, by Order dated April 11, 2025, has established a schedule for briefing the motion for preliminary injunction. In light of the foregoing, the parties stipulated and agreed that the Defendants must answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint sixty (60) days after the Court enters an Order deciding the motion for preliminary injunction. Nothing in this Stipulation will be deemed to constitute a waiver of any rights, defenses, objections or any other application to any court that any party may have with respect to the claims set forth in the Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3yxt3a46 from PacerMonitor.com. Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101; Reed R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley, CA 94710; Jason Leviton -- jason@blockleviton.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, in Boston, MA 021110; Kimberly A. Evans -- kim@blockleviton.com -- Lindsay K. Faccenda -- lindsay@blockleviton.com -- Daniel M. Baker -- daniel@blockleviton.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, in Wilmington, DE 19801; Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in Wilmington, DE 19801; John Vielandi -- jvielandi@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP, in New York, NY 10005; D. Seamus Kaskela -- skaskela@kaskelalaw.com -- Adrienne Bell -- abell@kaskelalaw.com -- KASKELA LAW LLC, in Newtown Square, PA 19073, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Sean C. Knowles -- SKnowles@perkinscoie.com -- Joseph E. Bringman -- JBringman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101-3099; James W. Ducayet -- JDucayet@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Chicago, IL 60603; Charlotte K. Newell -- CNewell@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in New York, NY 10019; Robin E. Wechkin -- rwechkin@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Issaquah, WA 98027-8767, Attorneys for Defendants Nordstrom, Inc., James L. Donald, Kirsten A. Green, Glenda G. McNeal, Amie Thuener O'Toole, Guy B. Persaud, Eric D. Sprunk, Bradley D. Tilden, Mark J. Tritton, and Atticus N. Tysen. Robert J. Maguire -- robmaguire@dwt.com -- Rachel H. Herd -- rachelherd@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, in Seattle, WA 98104-1610; Daniel W. Halston -- daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com -- Robert K. Smith -- robert.smith@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, in Boston, MA 02109; Tania C. Matsuoka -- tania.matsuoka@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, in New York, NY 10007, Attorneys for Defendants Navy Acquisition Co. Inc., Norse Holdings, Inc., Erik B. Nordstrom, and Peter E. Nordstrom. Robert J. Maguire -- robmaguire@dwt.com -- Rachel H. Herd -- rachelherd@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, in Seattle, WA 98104-1610; Stephen P. Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- Eric C. McCaffree -- eric.mccaffree@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, in Palo Alto, CA 94304, Attorneys for Defendant El Puerto de Liverpool S.A.B. de C.V. ONE POINT: Court Narrows Claims in Viviali Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled CHARLES VIVIALI, et al., individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONE POINT HR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00185-DCR (E.D. Ky.). Plaintiffs Charles Viviali, Lisa Alicea, and Kayla Lofton initiated this action after cybercriminals pilfered their data from Defendant One Point HR Solutions LLC. The matter is pending for consideration of One Point's motion to dismiss. It argues the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed due to lack of Article III standing or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure. On July 3, 2023, cybercriminals infiltrated One Point's network, gaining access to the Plaintiffs' personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including their full names, social security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, state and federal identification numbers, medical and health insurance information, passport numbers, usernames and passwords, and payment card information. The breach continued until Feb. 14, 2024. But rather than promptly notifying victims that their data was compromised, One Point allegedly kept the Plaintiffs in the dark and waited until Sept. 6, 2024, before it began notifying the class--a full 431 days after the Data Breach began. Plaintiff Lisa Alicea was notified of the breach on Oct. 11, 2024, and subsequently received alerts from Experian that her information was found on the Dark Web. Plaintiff Charles Viviali, a former employee of One Point, also received notice of the breach on Oct. 11, 2024. Plaintiff Kayla Lofton is unsure how One Point obtained her personal data, but she asserts that she was informed of the breach on Oct. 11, 2024. All three named Plaintiffs claim to have suffered a diminution in the value of their personal information due to the breach. In its motion, One Point argues the Plaintiffs lack standing because they do not plead "out of pocket expenses or monetary damages as a result of the data breach." But earlier in its motion to dismiss, Judge Reeves notes that One Point appears to concede the Plaintiffs "plead that as a result of the data breach, they have suffered actual identity theft, out of pocket expenses, lost time associated with mitigation, and future costs expended to repair and prevent future harm." Judge Reeves notes that the facts presented in this case closely resemble those of Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 663 F. App'x 384 (6th Cir. 2016). Here, the Plaintiffs allege a notable loss of time and "out of pocket" expense. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have standing under Galaria. And because an intentional data breach perpetrated by criminals is distinct from the negligent dissemination of a false credit report by a legitimate credit reporting company, Judge Reeves joins with the courts that conclude the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) did not abrogate Galaria. Because One Point's headquarters and the purportedly hacked computer network is in Kentucky, and because it was organized and maintains its principal place of business here, Judge Reeves holds that the laws of the Commonwealth will apply. At this stage, Judge Reeves finds the damages alleged by the Plaintiffs are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs attempt to assert a negligence per se claim by virtue of the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), both federal statutes. The Court already has determined that Kentucky law will apply, so the Plaintiffs' arguments concerning Missouri and Florida law also fail. Consequently, Judge Reeves holds that the Plaintiffs' negligence per se claims will be dismissed. Applying Kentucky law, the breach of confidence claim will also be dismissed. The Plaintiffs make a claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Applying Kentucky law, Judge Reeves holds that this claim will be dismissed. Because the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden, their breach of fiduciary duty claims fail as a matter of law. Essentially, the Complaint alleges the Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on One Point and it was unjustly enriched when it profited without any coordinate efforts to protect the Plaintiffs' data in the transaction. Following the Bowen court's determination under similar facts, Judge Reeves holds that the unjust enrichment claim will not be dismissed, citing Bowen v. Paxton Media Grp., LLC, No. 5:21-CV-00143-GNS, 2022 WL 4110319, (W.D. Ky. Sept. 8, 2022). Accepting the Plaintiffs' assertions as true, even if the allegation the breach was committed with a knowing state of mind is little more than a negligence claim in disguise, the allegation that One Point wantonly covered it up and significantly delayed disclosure can be viewed as an aggravating factor to the breach, which is sufficient at this stage of the litigation, Judge Reeves opines. This claim may proceed as a result, the Court rules, among other things. Based on the foregoing analysis and discussion, the Court rules that Defendant One Point's Motion to Dismiss is granted, in part, and denied, in part, consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b6anddp from PacerMonitor.com. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mack Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JUNE MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC, d/b/a ONSITE WOMEN'S HEALTH, Case No. 3:25-cv-30076 (D. Mass., April 29, 2025)alleges that Onsite failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information of the Plaintiff and more than 350,000 current and former patients. At some point in October 2024, Onsite discovered that a threat actor had gained unauthorized access to Private Information of over 350,000 patients through a phishing attack, thereby accessing and exfiltrating messages and attachments containing sensitive and confidential patient data. The compromised data include names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and sensitive medical information concerning patients' physical conditions and the care they received (collectively Private Information). I The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; warn Plaintiff and Class Members of the Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients who received breast health and imaging services from Onsite. 19. In order to apply to receive those services, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide sensitive and confidential Private Information. Onsite operates in-office breast-imaging services nationwide under the "Onsite Women's Health" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.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 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com OPENAI INC: Tremblay Class Action Consolidated in MDL 3143 ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay, et al v. OPENAI, INC. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03223-AMO, (N.D. Cal.) is consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3143) RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION. These actions share factual questions ariding from allegations that OpenAI and Microsoft used copyrighted works, without consent or compensation, to train their large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4. OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence research organization founded in December 2015. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uxctzz at no extra charge.[CC] OUTSOURCED: Conditional Class Certification Bid Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE CURRY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES & STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00076-DBB-DBP (D. Utah). Plaintiff Michelle Curry moves for conditional class certification on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated. She alleges that Defendant Outsourced Associates & Staffing, LLC ("Now CFO") has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages to non-exempt employees. Now CFO is a Utah Corporation that offers accounting, controller, and consulting services. Ms. Curry worked as a consultant for Now CFO from May 2023 to November 2024 under market president April Diemer. The Now CFO Employment Agreement for Non-Exempt, Full-Time Consultants states that employees are paid "for all Client Billable Hours," which are defined as "billable hours worked for Employer's Clients that are billed to Clients for Employee's services" (the "Billable Hours Policy"). Ms. Curry signed the Agreement with Now CFO at the beginning of her employment. Ms. Curry alleges that, under this policy, Now CFO does not pay its non-exempt consultants for any work they perform that is not billed to a client. Ms. Curry alleges that, due to the policy as articulated in the Agreement, overtime eligible consultants were not paid for their time spent on non-billable work, such as team meetings, performance reviews, planning sessions, and training. She claims that, because of this policy, consultants often worked more than forty hours a week but were not paid overtime. Ms. Curry filed her complaint against Now CFO on Feb. 4, 2025, asserting that Now CFO failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, among other claims. She then moved for conditional certification of the proposed class of individuals who worked for Now CFO as consultants. Ms. Curry requests that the Court conditionally certify a FLSA class consisting of all individuals who worked for Now CFO as consultants or in similar positions. Now CFO argues that conditional certification should not be granted because Ms. Curry has not shown that the potential class members are similarly situated. Ms. Curry alleges that the Agreement, which was signed by all consultants in the proposed class, establishes the policy that consultants were paid only for their time that was billed to a client. The Court finds Ms. Curry has substantially alleged that the Billable Hours Policy is a common policy for contractors that signed an Agreement with the provision, and conditional class certification is appropriate. Now CEO argues that the consultants in the proposed class worked in different geographic areas, so they were not subject to a single, unified policy. According to the Court, contractors who signed an agreement with the policy are similarly situated. Now CEO also argues that the conditional class should not be certified because there will be differences in potential damages for each consultant. Although the Court may evaluate the difficulty in calculating damages later in this litigation, it is not an appropriate consideration at this stage. The Court concludes Ms. Curry has substantially alleged that contractors employed by Now CEO who signed the Agreement were all subject to the Billable Hours Policy and are therefore similarly situated. Conditional class certification is granted for these individuals. Ms. Curry requests that the Court conditionally certify a FLSA class consisting of: All persons who worked as consultants, controller consultants, CFO consultants, or in other positions with similar job duties, for NOW CFO at any time during the last three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the entry of judgment. Now CFO's statute of limitations argument also fails to establish that the conditional class language should be changed. The FLSA has a three-year statute of limitations for willful violations, which Ms. Curry has alleged in this case. The three year statute of limitations is integrated into Ms. Curry's proposed class definition, which includes people who worked for NOW CFO at any time during the last three years. Therefore, the proposed class definition includes only individuals who may have a claim under the relevant statute of limitations. However, the Court says Ms. Curry's proposed language is overinclusive and must be limited to similarly situated contractors. Ms. Curry has established that contractors who signed an agreement with the Billable Hours Policy are similarly situated. The class she proposes does not mention the policy or any employment agreement. Accordingly, the proposed class definition must be updated to include only those individuals who are similarly situated due to their employment agreement containing the Billable Hours Policy. The Court grants conditional certification for all persons who worked as consultants, controller consultants, CFO consultants, or in other positions with similar job duties, for NOW CFO at any time during the last three years and who signed a written employment contract containing language indicating that they would only be paid for work billed to clients. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s9yoXS from PacerMonitor.com. PALM SPRINGS: Faces Orellana Class Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------ A labor class action has been filed against Palm Springs Hotel LLC captioned as EDGAR GUSTOVA CALDERON ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALM SPRINGS HOTEL LLC, Defendants, Case No. CVPS2502259 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., April 1, 2025). Palm Springs Hotel LLC owns and operates a hotel in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Ginzburg, Esq. 4215 Admiralty Way Marina Del Ray, CA 90292 Tel: (310) 301-4840 PALMETTO H LLC: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Access to Properties --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALMETTO H LLC and 7 STARS PRODUCTIONS, CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21668 (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Palmetto H LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. 7 Stars Productions, Corp. is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com PAYCHEX NORTH: Fails to Pay Wages, OT Under Labor Code, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA GONZALEZ AND ALBERT LEE, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. PAYCHEX NORTH AMERICA, INC.; PAYCHEX, INC.; BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. (April 29, 2025) is a representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants allegedly implemented policies and practices which led to the following Labor Code violations which include but are not limited to: (a) failure to pay wages including overtime, (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than ten hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c) failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (d) failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendant’s employ; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to reimburse expenses; and (g) failing to provide written agreements. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by Defendant in August 15, 2019 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of HR Business Partner 13 and worked during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in March 15, 2024. The Defendants operate as payroll processing and HR services businesses. The Plaintiffs estimate there are in excess of 100 Non-Exempt Employees who work or have worked for the Defendants over the last four years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com PEKIN INSURANCE: Settlement in Doyle Suit Gets Preliminary Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John J. Tuchi of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and certification of the settlement class in the case captioned as Taylor Doyle, Plaintiff, v. Pekin Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00638-JJT (D. Ariz.). Plaintiff filed the present putative class action case alleging she was injured in an automobile collision that resulted in over $220,000 in bodily injury damages. The non-party at fault was insured with bodily injury liability coverage up to $50,000 per injured person, so he was underinsured as to Plaintiff under A.R.S. Sec. 20-259.01(G). She was insured under a policy with Defendant Pekin Insurance Company that provided UIM coverage for each of two vehicles at $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Defendant did not allow her to stack the two vehicles' UIM coverages despite not complying with the notice provision of A.R.S. sec. 20-259.01(H). The parties in the present lawsuit engaged in pre-class certification settlement negotiations and a mediation, through which they reached an agreement to settle this case for $12.45 million. Plaintiff now moves for certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Class Certification Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the proposed "Settlement Class" is as follows: All persons identified in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement and who do not timely elect to be excluded from the Settlement Class, which roughly includes all persons (a) insured under a policy issued by Defendant in Arizona that contained the UM Endorsement or UIM Endorsement and provided UM Coverage or UIM Coverage for more than one motor vehicle; (b) who made a claim for UM Coverage or UIM Coverage during the Class Period; and (c) who (i) received a claim payment equal to the limit of liability for UM or UIM benefits for one vehicle; or (ii) who were one of multiple claimants in a claim related to a single incidence, where the aggregate total paid on the claim was equal to the per incident limit of liability for the UM Coverage or UIM Coverage for one vehicle. The Court now considers whether this proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). In the present case, the proposed class has 94 members, the joinder of which would be impracticable. Accordingly, numerosity is satisfied. The Court finds Plaintiff satisfactorily demonstrates common questions of law and fact through allegations that all members of the proposed class purchased a Pekin policy in Arizona that included multi-vehicle UM/UIM coverage and the same or substantially the same limitation-of-liability language, and each member requested UM or UIM coverage from Pekin but only received the policy limit for one covered vehicle, even though Pekin did not provide the required notice under A.R.S. Sec. 20-259.01(H). Moreover, Plaintiff's breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing causes of action are identical to those of the rest of the proposed class. Because all the policies at issue are Arizona policies, Arizona law controls and applies to each member. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the commonality requirement. Plaintiff's claims and the class claims are identical, as they all sound in contract and arise out of virtually identical injuries. Plaintiff's claims are therefore typical of the class's claims, and the typicality requirement is met, the Court finds. Plaintiff's counsel has no conflict with the proposed class members, as counsel has previously litigated related cases and achieved favorable results such that it is also likely to prosecute the present action vigorously on behalf of the class. Plaintiff has shown adequacy. The Court also finds in this case, the common issues predominate over the individual issues. Damages in this case will be calculated on a class-wide basis using a set formula, which is sufficient to satisfy the predominance element. Because each member's claims involve substantially similar contracts and conduct, filing scores of individual cases would simply increase litigation costs and waste the parties' and the Court's time and resources. Thus, the superiority requirement is met. In sum, the Court finds Plaintiff's proposed settlement class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b), and the Court will certify the class for settlement purposes. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement The Court finds the Parties Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and in the best interest of the putative class members, subject to further consideration at a final fairness hearing. The Court certifies the following Class for the purposes of settlement: All persons (a) insured under a policy issued by Defendant in Arizona that contained the UM Endorsement or UIM Endorsement and provided UM Coverage or UIM Coverage for more than one motor vehicle; (b) who made a claim for UM Coverage or UIM Coverage during the Class Period; and (c) who (i) received a claim payment equal to the limit of liability for the UM or UIM benefits for one vehicle, or (ii) who were one of multiple claimants in a claim related to a single incident, where the aggregate total paid on the claim was equal to the per incident limit of liability for the UM Coverage or UIM Coverage for one vehicle, as identified in Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. The Court designates Taylor Doyle as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Robert Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Final Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Sept. 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. (a date no sooner than 90 days following completion of the notice being issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1711 et seq.), before District Judge John J. Tuchi in Courtroom 505, Sandra Day O'Connor Federal Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, to determine whether to approve certification of the class for settlement purposes; whether the proposed settlement of the Lawsuit on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court; whether a final judgment should be entered herein; whether the proposed plan of distribution should be approved; to determine the amount of fees and expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel; and to determine the amount of the service award that should be provided to the Class Representative. The Court may adjourn the Final Fairness Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. The Court appoints the firm of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator. All papers in support of the settlement and responses by Class Counsel regarding objections and exclusions must be filed by Aug. 29, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CmyIsn from PacerMonitor.com. PILLPACK LLC: Settlement in Williams Suit Obtains Final Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Estudillo of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and final approval of settlement in the case captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PILLPACK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05282 (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff originally filed this suit on April 12, 2019. Defendant PillPack LLC is a full-service pharmacy that delivers medications in multi-dose packaging to patients' homes. In 2018, Defendant engaged Performance Media Strategies, Inc. to telemarket its services. Plaintiff alleged that on March 14 and April 10, 2019, he received calls from a telemarketer using a prerecorded voice message asking if he was interested in a pharmacy service that would ship medications directly to his house. When Plaintiff expressed interest, the call was transferred to a PillPack sales representative. Plaintiff alleged the calls were made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. Plaintiff sued PillPack personally and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons. He claimed PillPack was vicariously liable for the telemarketer's violations of the TCPA because PillPack knowingly or willfully caused the autodialed calls to be made to his cell phone despite his lack of consent. Plaintiff sought statutory damages under the TCPA. Class Certification Plaintiff first moved for class certification on July 24, 2020. The Court certified a class of all consumers called as part of the Pillpack-Performance Media campaign. As a result of new information gained through discovery, however, the Court decertified the class on Nov. 3, 2021. On Dec. 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to recertify a narrower class of people who received the prerecorded voice calls and were transferred to PillPack. Settlement 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. The Court granted the motion and approved the proposed class notice plan with minimal changes. Attorney Fees Plaintiff seeks approval for attorney fees in the amount of $2,166,450 -- one third of the settlement fund. The lodestar multiplier of 0.72x strongly supports the fee award. The Court finds the requested attorney fees in the amount of $2,166,450 reasonable. Incentive Award Williams requests a service award of $20,000, which is .31% of the total settlement fund. Based on Plaintiff's long-term involvement in the litigation, the time spent in providing discovery, and the comparative size of the settlement, the Court concludes that a class representative service award of $20,000 is reasonable. Litigation Cost Reimbursement The Court has reviewed the submissions of Class Counsel and finds that their requests for unreimbursed expenses are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will award Class Counsel $338,016. Final Approval This action is a class action against Defendant on behalf a class of persons defined as follows: 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. The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) as set forth in its earlier order certifying the class. 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. 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. 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. 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. Melvin Tyson validly excluded himself from the Class and is thus excluded from the terms of this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vVIhnI from PacerMonitor.com. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keigley Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Tristan Keigley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00210 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-00978-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq. Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Ste. 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: mliu@awkolaw.com jrichards@awkolaw.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: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Dwyer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNIELLE DWYER, et al. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00671 (D. Conn., April 28, 2025) is a class action against PowerSchool for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including Class Members' names, contact information, dates of birth, medical information, Social Security numbers, grade information, and other related information. According to the complaint, the Data Breach impacted minor children, their families, and teachers whose data was kept by PowerSchool and involved at least the following types of information: "individual's name, contact information, date of birth, limited medical alert information, Social Security Number, and other related information." The information PowerSchool takes from students includes everything from educational records and behavioral history to health data and information about a child's family circumstances. PowerSchool collects this highly sensitive information under the guise of educational support, but in fact collects it for its own commercial gain. PowerSchool has built a billion-dollar corporation by collecting and exploiting the information of children in compulsory education environments and then failed to adequately safeguard this Private Information. According to the notification the Plaintiffs' children's and employer's school districts sent, hackers used a compromised credential to access PowerSchool's student information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs include ERICA LATON, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor children, E.L. and S.S., MARIA KRANTZ, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, F.K., BRITTANY MANSI, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, J.M., KRISTIN LOGAN, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child, J.L., MARY HALL, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor child D.B., RACHEAL PARADISO, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of her minor children, R.H., A.H., and Z.H., and CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. PowerSchool is an EdTech platform deeply entrenched in schools and school districts across the United States. PowerSchool collects, stores, and analyzes the sensitive data of teachers and students it acquires through its educational technology products that it sells to schools and school districts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, FLOOR 15 STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greer Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kim Greer, individually and on behalf of all others similary situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00127 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, 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-00995-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: David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq. PO Box 7376 Asheville, NC 28802 Phone: (828) 258-2991 Fax: (828) 257-2767 The Defendants are represented by: Colin D. Dailey, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 576-2528 Fax: (310) 576-2200 Email: colin.dailey@bclplaw.com - and - 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 - and - Monica Mleczko, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 235-4082 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Habbal Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ratib Habbal, Rushda Afzal, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00173 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-00965-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: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 9411 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Hauser Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Hauser, Amy Hauser, on behalf of themselves and as parents and guardians of their minor child, Jane Doe, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00665 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 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-01003-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: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 - and - David A. Goodwin, Esq. Gabrielle Kolb, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Fax: (952) 941-2337 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 - and - Joseph T. Dixon, III, Esq. Nathan Rice, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4400 Phone: (612) 492-7258 Fax: (612) 492-7077 - and - Monica Mleczko, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 235-4082 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: J.B. Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned J.B., M.B., minors, by and through their legal guardian Patrick Bowler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00327 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 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-00994 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle Izzo, Esq. Gloria Jane Medina, Esq. Michael Hotz, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Joseph Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Megan Joseph, on behalf of her minor children B.J. and C.J.; Emily Kidder, Dale Kidder, on behalf of their minor children E.K. and M.K.; and all other similarly situated individuals v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00517 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-01028-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI AND SAVERI INC One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 217-6810 Fax: (415) 217-6813 - and - Christopher Young, Esq. Kevin Edward Rayhill, Esq. Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Email: cyoung@saverilawfirm.com jsaveri@saverilawfirm.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: K. I. Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as K. I., R. I., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00122 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, 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-00998-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. 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: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 The Defendants are represented by: James D. Lawrence, Esq. BRYAN AND CAVE 1200 Main Street, Suite 3300 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 374-3200 - and - 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 - and - Grace E. Martinez, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1200 Main Street, Suite 3800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 374-3277 Fax: (816) 855-3277 - and - Monica Mleczko, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 235-4082 PRESTIGE CARE: Class Settlement in Brim Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brim, et al., v. Prestige Care Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05133-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Settle entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and the Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the preliminary approval order certifying, for the purposes of the settlement only, the action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule 23 on behalf of the settlement class consisting of: "All individuals impacted by Prestige Care's Data Incident, including all individuals who received notice of the Data Incident, that occurred on Sept. 7, 2023." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement (including any members of the Court's staff assigned to this case); (iii) Defendant's officers and directors, 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 criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court affirms its determination in the preliminary approval order appointing Donna Brim, Kimberly Perry, and Janet Turner Lamonica as Class Representatives for the Settlement class, and appointing Kaleigh N. Boyd of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC to serve as class counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, class counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $300,154.20 to be paid as specified in the settlement agreement. 4. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for service awards, and consistent with Paragraph 7.3 of the settlement agreement, the class representatives are each awarded $2,500.00 to be paid as specified in the settlement agreement. Prestige Care offers independent living communities, assisted living, memory care, home health, as well as rehabilitation and post-acute care. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ps4iC6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBER COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 650 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com PROTECTIVE LIFE: Settlement in Morneau, et al. Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as KEIR MILAN, Individually, and on behalf of the Class; CRISTIN MORNEAU and KELLY STRANGE, Individually, and Jointly as Successors-in-Interest to Carolyn A. Morneau, and on behalf of the Estate of Carolyn A. Morneau and the Class, Plaintiff, v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Alabama corporation; and WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01861-AHG (S.D. Cal.). On July 5, 2022, Plaintiffs Cristin Morneau and Kelly Strange filed this action in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated individuals. Defendants removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 1, 2022. Following removal, Defendants moved to transfer the action to this Court on Oct. 18, 2022. The Honorable Richard Seeborg granted the motion to transfer on Nov. 23, 2022. Upon transfer, this action was assigned to the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan and the undersigned on Nov. 28, 2022. In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to comply with California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The Statutes, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2013, generally require life insurance companies to provide: a 60-day grace period before terminating a policy; notice of missed premium and of pending termination before terminating a policy; and an annual opportunity for insureds to designate additional addresses for receiving policy notices. Plaintiffs Morneau and Strange alleged that Defendants unlawfully terminated their mother's life insurance policy in 2017 because she failed to make a premium payment, even though Defendants never provided their mother with the notices required under The Statutes. Plaintiffs asserted that because Defendants did not comply with The Statutes, the policy termination was ineffective. Thus, when their mother died in January 2022, Plaintiffs claimed their rights as beneficiaries to the proceeds of the policy. Plaintiff Milan similarly alleged that Defendants unlawfully terminated his life insurance policy in August 2022 when he purportedly missed a premium payment, without complying with various provisions of The Statutes, including the requirement to annually notify him of a right to designate, the requirement to provide a 60-day grace period for nonpayment of premium, and the notice requirements. Plaintiff Milan alleges that Defendants' violations of The Statutes constitute a breach of their ongoing duty of good faith and fair dealing and a material breach and repudiation of Plaintiff Milan's life insurance policy, thereby excusing any further performance by Plaintiff Milan of tendering premiums. Defendants deny any liability to Plaintiffs. Terms of the Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement provides relief to all persons who own an interest in a "Class Policy," or "an individual life insurance policy issued or delivered in California by Protective that was not affirmatively canceled or terminated in writing by the Policy Owner and that: (i) lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium on or after Jan. 1, 2013, without Protective first providing all the protections required by California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72; and (ii) has a Maturity Date that did not expire prior to the Insured's death, or if the Insured is still living, prior to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order." The Settlement Agreement provides two different forms of relief: injunctive relief and damages relief. The parties seek approval of a settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for the injunctive relief; and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for the damages relief. Defendants will create a "Settlement Fund" of $80,000,000 that will be used to pay attorney fees and costs related to litigation and administration of the settlement. The settlement payout for each Damages Relief Class Member from the Settlement Fund will be determined based on a formula that considers their percentage of ownership in the Class Policy, the face amount of the Class Policy, and the number of claims submitted. The Settlement Administrator will make and deduct payments from the Settlement Fund for: (1) attorney fees in an amount up to $20,000,000 and litigation costs in an amount up to $240,000, to be determined by the Court; (2) Incentive Awards of $10,000 for each Class Representative, subject to Court approval; (3) settlement administration expenses; and (4) Special Master expenses. The Settlement Administrator will also create a reserve fund to pay any future administration fees and expenses for the Administrator and the Special Master. Class Certification Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(2) as to members of the Injunctive Relief Class, which includes persons who are living Policy Owners of any Class Policy where the Insured is alive as of the date the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3) as to members of the Damages Class, which includes persons associated with any Class Policy where the Insured is deceased as of the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered. The Settlement Agreement further defines the Class Period as the period from Jan. 1, 2013, through the date the Court enters the Preliminary Approval Order. To obtain class certification, Plaintiffs must provide facts in support of the four requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied as to both the Injunctive Relief Class and the Damages Class. Plaintiffs assert that the proposed Injunctive Relief Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied with respect to the Injunctive Relief Class. Plaintiffs seek certification of the Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires Plaintiffs to establish that common questions of law and fact predominate, and a class action would be superior to other methods for resolving the claims or the proposed class. The Court finds that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficient adjudicating the controversy. Accordingly, Rule 23(b)(3) is met. Preliminary Approval This action is provisionally certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a class action for purposes of settlement only with respect to the proposed Settlement Class. The Court has determined only that there is sufficient evidence to support a preliminary finding that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court will make a definitive determination at the hearing on the motion for final approval of class action settlement as to whether the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable. For purposes of this Settlement Agreement and this Preliminary Approval Order only, the Court certifies a class of Class Members as described in the Settlement Agreement, specifically: "all owners and beneficiaries (where the Insured has died as of the date of the Preliminary Approval Order) of Class Policies," where "Class Policy", or the plural thereof refers to: an individual life insurance policy issued or delivered in California by Protective that was not affirmatively canceled or terminated in writing by the Policy Owner and that: (i) lapsed or terminated for nonpayment of premium on or after Jan. 1, 2013 without Protective first providing all the protections required by California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72; and (ii) has a Maturity Date that did not expire prior to the Insured's death, or if the Insured is still living, prior to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. Class Members generally fall into one of two categories, depending on whether the insured(s) under the relevant policy is still alive (the "Injunctive Relief Class"), or whether the insured(s) has died, thus potentially entitling the policy beneficiaries to death benefits (the "Damages Class"). The former are entitled to Injunctive Relief only under the terms of the Settlement, and they and their claims are hereby certified on a non-opt-out basis under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Damages Class and claims, however, which includes potential damages relief under the Settlement, are hereby certified with opt-out rights, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). For purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Preliminary Approval Order, the "Settlement Class" means all members of: a) the Injunctive Relief Class, and b) the Damages Class. The "Injunctive Relief Class" means all living Policy Owners of any Class Policy (or if the Policy Owner of a Class Policy is deceased, that Policy Owner's successor in interest) where the Insured is alive as of the date the Court enters this Preliminary Approval Order. The "Damages Class" means all persons associated with any Class Policy where the Insured is deceased as of the date this Order is entered who do not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion to the Settlement Administrator pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Preliminary Approval Order -- including the Class definition -- "Protective" refers to Defendant Protective Life Insurance Company, a Tennessee Corporation ("PLICO"), and the following companies but only to the extent PLICO was financially responsible for the payment of benefits on policies issued by these companies as of the Final Lapse Date of each Class Policy (e.g., as a co-insurer, re-insurer, or successor insurer): West Coast Life Insurance Company; Protective Life and Annuity Company; Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company; Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company; Standard Insurance Company; Voya Life Insurance Company; Aetna Life Insurance Company; Anthem Life Insurance Company; American General Life Insurance Company; Jefferson National Life Insurance Company; John Hancock Life Insurance Company; MONY Life Insurance Company; MONY Life Insurance Company of America; MONY Life Insurance Company of Boston; Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company; Commonwealth Annuity and Life Insurance Company; Everence Association Inc.; Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company of America; First Variable Life Insurance Company; Humana Dental Insurance Company; Nationwide Life Insurance Company; Optum Insurance of Ohio, Inc.; Sunset Life Insurance Company of America; Unum Life Insurance Company of America; Lincoln National Life Insurance Company; and Zurich American Life Insurance Company. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Craig Nicholas and Alex Tomasevic of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP; Jack B. Winters and Sarah Ball of Winters & Associates; and Michelle Myers of Singleton Schreiber, LLP as Class Counsel for all Class Members. The Court preliminarily approves Class Counsel's request for attorney fees and litigation costs, subject to final review and approval by the Court. The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Cristin Morneau and Keir Milan as the Class Representatives. The Court preliminarily approves the requested service payments of $10,000 to each Class Representative, subject to final review and approval by the Court. The Court appoints Angeion Group, LLC as the Settlement Administrator to conduct all Class notice and administration activities contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the estimated Settlement Administration Expenses for Angeion's work, subject to final review and approval by the Court. The Court appoints neutral Thomas Sharkey, Esq., of Judicate West, as contemplated by the Settlement, to adjudicate any disputes regarding entitlement to relief pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, any disputes regarding the Discounted Reinstatement Amount, and Settlement Administrator's determinations regarding (i) whether a Claimant qualifies as an Authorized Claimant; (ii) the amount an Authorized Claimant is entitled to receive from the Class Benefit Fund; (iii) whether a Requestor qualifies as an Authorized Requestor; and (iv) whether a Policy Owner affirmatively canceled or terminated a policy in writing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Oct. 24, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2C of the United States District Court, Southern District of California, located at the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 to consider the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement preliminarily approved by this Order, including without limitation, ruling on any objections to the Settlement; Class Counsel's petitions for (i) an award of attorney fees and costs; (ii) approval of service payments to Class Representatives; (iii) approval for payment of the Settlement Administration Expenses incurred to date; and (iv) approval for payment of the Special Master's expenses incurred to date, all of which, if approved, shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. Any person planning to attend the hearing should confirm upon arrival at the courthouse that the courtroom where the hearing will take place has not changed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HtWieV from PacerMonitor.com. REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, McGeathy Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cory McGeathy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, d/b/a Discount Tire Co., Inc.; Board of Directors of The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, and its members; Empower Trust Company, LLC, and its members; and Does 1–20, Case No. 2:25-cv-01439-DLR (D. Ariz., April 29, 2025) involves protracted breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by the fiduciaries of the Discount Tire/America's Tire Retirement Plan. According to the complaint, as fiduciaries, the Discount Tire Defendants have an obligation to prudently curate a menu of investment options for the Plan. They must regularly monitor those investment options and remove ones that can no longer be prudently included in the Plan's investment lineup. The Plan's participants, who are mostly current and former Discount Tire employees, can invest their retirement savings in the funds that the Discount Tire Defendants select for the Plan. The Discount Tire Defendants included one of the worst-performing investment suites in the entire market -- the American Century Target Fund Suite -- in the Plan for over 15 years. The American Century Target Fund Suite was an investment suite that turned retirement investing on its head. According to Morningstar, Inc., the American Century Target Fund Suite takes "a contrarian approach to retirement investing" that "courts above-average risk for retirees." Throughout its existence, the American Century Target Fund Suite delivered abysmal investment performance. Plaintiff McGeathy brings this suit on behalf of the Plan, and on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan affected by the challenged conduct of the Discount Tire Defendants. He was a participant in the Plan during the Class Period. Plaintiff McGeathy suffered individual injury by investing in the Plan's poorly performing American Century Target Fund Suite, says the suit. Reinalt-Thomas is a major retailer of tires, auto parts, and accessories, and is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation is the Plan sponsor, Plan Administrator, and a fiduciary of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT PLLC 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com REVOLVE GROUP: Influencers Misrepresent Products, Negreanu Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LIGIA NEGREANU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVOLVE GROUP, INC., ALLIANCE APPAREL GROUP, INC. EMINENT, INC., d/b/a REVOLVE CLOTHING, FWRD, LLC, CINDY MELLO, TIKA CAMAJ, and NIENKE JANSZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03186 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, California's Unlawful Business Practices Act, and consumer protection laws of various states, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' deceptive, unfair and misleading promotion of Revolve products in the states of Florida, California, and throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant Influencers misrepresented the material connection they have with Revolve by endorsing Revolve on social media without disclosing the fact that they were compensated for doing it, a practice that is highly unfair and deceptive. Relying on the undisclosed endorsements and misleading advertising, the Plaintiff and Class Members purchased Revolve products and paid a premium, while the products proved to be of a lower value than the price paid. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic losses, says the suit. Revolve Group, Inc. is an owner of brands doing business in California. Alliance Apparel Group, Inc. is an apparel business in California. Eminent, Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing, is a clothing company doing business in California. FWRD, LLC is a limited liability company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Aron, Esq. ARON LAW FIRM 15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 217 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-1768 Email: bill@aronlawfirm.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com - and - Bogdan Enica, Esq. 1200 N. Federal Hwy., Ste. 300 Boca Raton FL 33432 Telephone: (305) 306-4989 Email: bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com ROGER GOODELL: Court Endorses Dismissal of Holliday Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSH HOLLIDAY, V. ROGER GOODELL, ET AL., Case No. 2:25-cv-00264-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Donna Phillips Currault recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2) as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The Court further recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal under section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and otherwise for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Despite being advised that his failure to respond to the Show Cause Order could result in summary dismissal, Plaintiff failed to comply and has not submitted a written statement setting forth the specific facts supporting his cause(s) of action. The Plaintiff Josh Holliday filed a Complaint and Ex Parte/Consent Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on February 20, 2025. Consistent with the duties imposed by 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a) and (e)(2)(B), the Court ordered that summons not be issued until completion of the statutorily mandated review. On March 6, 2025, I issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to file a written response setting forth the specific facts upon which he bases his claims, with a deadline of Wednesday, April 9, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2). The Order further advised the Plaintiff that his failure to respond in writing as directed may result in dismissal of his complaint. The record does not reflect any filing by the Plaintiff in response to my March 6, 2025, Order. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have defrauded ticket purchasers and viewers by conspiring with referees to "rig" games and make biased play calls at various football games, including the Jan. 26, 2025, NFL game in Kansas City, Missouri. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wPBf8h at no extra charge.[CC] RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Court Endorses Dismissal of Hill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL LAMAR HILL, v. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00646-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Chad Bryan recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice and that the pending motions for class certification be denied as moot. The Court entered an order that all objections to this Recommendation must be filed no later than May 5, 2025. An objecting party must identify the specific portions of all factual findings/legal conclusions to which objection is made and must describe in detail the basis for each objection. An objecting party also must identify any claim or defense that the Recommendation has not addressed. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. After receiving objections, the District Judge will conduct a de novo review of the challenged findings and recommendations. The District Judge may accept, reject, or modify the Recommendation or may refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge with instructions for further proceedings. A party shall be deemed to have waived the right to challenge on appeal a District Judge's order to the extent it is based upon unobjected-to findings or recommendations. The Plaintiff vaguely asserts that his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated. But the Plaintiff has failed to include allegations sufficient to support any such claims. The Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Upon threshold review, the court found the Complaint to contain various deficiencies "that must be remedied before the case can proceed." A copy of the Court's recommendation dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=63ZiSb at no extra charge.[CC] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-01910-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., April 30, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website (www.samsung.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiffs and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's website remains accessible in the future. The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate. The Defendant offers electronics for sale including, but not limited to, smartphones, tablets, televisions, appliances, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. HRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SAVE MART: Baker Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE BAKER, JOSÉ LUNA, EDGAR POPKE, and DENNY G. WRASKE, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS and SAVE MART SELECT RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-04645-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 7, 2025 will move for an Order pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (i) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement dated April 18, 2025 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants; (ii) finding that the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23 are likely to be satisfied; (iii) approving the form and manner of Notice to the Settlement Class; (iv) approving the proposed Plan of Distribution; (v) approving the selection of the Settlement Administrator; (vi) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Settlement Class Counsel; and (vii) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Class is: "All people who were participants in the Save Mart Select Retiree Health Benefit Plan as of June 30, 2022, all people who retired and met the Eligibility Criteria at any time on or after April 22, 2022, and all current Save Mart employees who have not yet retired but have otherwise met the Eligibility Criteria." The Settlement Class encompasses all non-union employees who worked for Save Mart long enough to qualify for retiree medical benefits (and otherwise met the Plan's eligibility criteria), had those benefits not been discontinued. Save Mart will pay $20,545,000 to a non-reversionary Class Common Fund. Save Mart operates a chain of supermarkets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WFtEsW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. Benjamin A. Trouvais, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery St., 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 - and - James P. Keenley, Esq. Emily A. Bolt, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 - and - Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. Erin R. Hutchins, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 SENIOR LIFE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Matthews TCPA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Senior Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss the case captioned THOMAS MATTHEWS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SENIOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01550-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.). The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. This action stems from Plaintiff's receipt of three unwanted phone calls telemarketing life insurance by SLIC. Since Aug. 31, 2021, Plaintiff's personal phone number has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff has never solicited information from SLIC prior to receiving these three calls. On Aug. 26, 27, and 28, 2024, Plaintiff received scripted telemarketing calls from the number 239-359-5582. The calls asked Plaintiff qualifying questions for SLIC's life insurance. SLIC continued to call Plaintiff despite the fact that he indicated he was not interested. Plaintiff alleges he was harmed by these calls through the violation of his privacy, and that he was annoyed and harassed. Plaintiff brings a single class action claim against SLIC for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. He seeks injunctive relief prohibiting SLIC from calling telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry or using an automated dialer, statutory damages, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. SLIC moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. SLIC argues that Plaintiff failed to plead facts that state a claim as to Defendant's direct and vicarious liability, under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint fails to satisfy both standards. Plaintiff makes no allegations related to vicarious liability. As to direct liability, the Complaint contains conclusory statements that Plaintiff repeatedly received calls from SLIC, and that all three calls were solicitations from Defendant. Because the Complaint does not adequately allege liability for SLIC under the TCPA, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, the Court grants SLIC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MsRIQ from PacerMonitor.com. SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Dimarco Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN DIMARCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03587 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of the Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class certification, received two or more text messages within any 12- month period, from or on behalf of Defendant, regarding Defendant’s goods, services, or properties, to said person’s residential cellular telephone number, after communicating to Defendant that they did not wish to receive text messages by replying to the messages with a "stop" or similar opt-out instruction." SharkNinja is a global product design and technology company based in Needham, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com SHOPIFY INC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Briskin Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRANDON BRISKIN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SHOPIFY, INC.; SHOPIFY (USA), INC.; SHOPIFY PAYMENTS (USA), INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-15815 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-06269-PJH, Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding. Argued and Submitted En Banc on Sept. 26, 2024. Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen, Michelle T. Friedland, Mark J. Bennett, Daniel P. Collins, Patrick J. Bumatay, Holly A. Thomas and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. The Opinion was written by Judge Wardlaw; concurrence by Judges Collins and Bumatay; and dissent by Judge Callahan. The en banc Court reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and applying traditional specific personal jurisdiction precedent to e-commerce, concluded that jurisdiction was proper because the Defendants' allegedly tortious actions deliberately targeted Plaintiff Brandon Briskin in California. Mr. Briskin, a California resident, used his iPhone's Safari browser to purchase clothing from the brand IABMFG at https://www.iambecoming.com. When he pressed the "Pay now" button, he had no way of knowing that by doing so he submitted his personal data not to IABMFG, but to Shopify, an e-commerce platform that facilitates online sales for merchants with whom it contracts. Briskin filed his putative class action alleging privacy-related torts in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Shopify, Inc., a Canadian corporation, and two of its wholly-owned United States subsidiaries, Shopify (USA), Inc., and Shopify Payments (USA), Inc., Delaware corporations. The en banc Court concluded that Shopify is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because Shopify's allegedly tortious actions deliberately targeted Briskin in California where: (1) Shopify conceded that its geolocation technology allowed it to know that Briskin's device was located in California when it installed cookies on his device; and (2) Briskin's complaint alleged that Shopify used the data gathered by its cookies to compile consumer profiles and then sold them without the consumer's knowledge or consent. The en banc Court overruled precedent requiring the Defendants' conduct to evince "differential targeting" of a specific forum to establish specific personal jurisdiction in that forum. The en banc Court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Briskin's complaint on vagueness grounds. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. The en banc Court held that complaint satisfied Rule 8(a)(2) because it provided sufficient information to give the Shopify entities fair notice of the claims against them. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Collins agreed that the district court erred in dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction over the Shopify Defendants, but his reasoning differed in some respects from that of the majority. To establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in California, Briskin must show that each Defendant's suit-related conduct created a substantial connection with California, which entails a showing that Briskin's claims arose out of or related to some action by which a given Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State. In Judge Collins' view, this standard is readily satisfied here, because each Defendant allegedly committed, or is responsible for, tortious conduct within California. He also agreed with the majority that Briskin's pleading was sufficient to avoid dismissal on the ground that it was an impermissible group-pleading. Concurring, Judge Bumatay would hold that in determining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporate defendants, the analysis must focus on an analogy to physical presence, and it does not matter whether the Defendant also targeted the forum State over other States. Given the allegations made against the Shopify entities, the Shopify entities were sufficiently present in California to not require any targeting of the State to assert personal jurisdiction over them. Dissenting, Judge Callahan would hold that Supreme Court precedent precludes the majority's expansive view of specific personal jurisdiction in this case. In her view, Shopify's allegedly tortious conduct was not expressly aimed at California. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/34bx53ee from PacerMonitor.com. Nicolas A. Sansone -- nsansone@citizen.org -- Allison M. Zieve -- azieve@citizen.org -- Scott L. Nelson -- snelson@citizen.org -- Public Citizen Litigation Group, in Washington, D.C.; Seth A. Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Matthew T. McCrary -- matt@gutridesafier.com -- Todd Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, in San Francisco, California, for the Plaintiff-Appellant. Moez Kaba -- mkaba@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Allison Libeu -- alibeu@hueston.com -- Sourabh Mishra -- smishra@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, in Newport Beach, California; Adam Minchew -- aminchew@hueston.com -- Hueston Hennigan LLP, in New York City, for the Defendants-Appellees. Alan B. Morrison -- abmorrison@law.gwu.edu -- George Washington University Law School, in Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Alan B. Morrison. Jonathan M. Rotter -- jrotter@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Professors Patrick J. Borchers and Peter Hay. SOHO ART: Layne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOHO ART MATERIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01771 (E.D.N.Y.) is a civil rights action filed against the Defendant last March 31, 2025, for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.sohoartmaterials.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on April 29, 2024, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the White Pad, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Soho Art Material, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of products, including paints, brushes, canvases, and drawing materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Anders Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bruce H. Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina dismisses, without prejudice, the lawsuit entitled Joshua Anders, Plaintiff v. State of South Carolina; South Carolina Supreme Court; Chief Justice Donald Beatty; South Carolina Judicial Department; Charleston County Court of Common Pleas; Chief Judge Robert M. Young, Sr.; Julie J. Armstrong; United States of America; Chief Judge Timothy M. Cain; and United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06311-BHH (D.S.C.). The matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Joshua Anders' pro se complaint, which challenges certain filing requirements and practices in the state and federal judicial systems. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On March 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("Report"), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint without issuance and service of process. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that the Plaintiff's claims are not cognizable and he cannot bring a class action and does not have standing. In addition, the Magistrate Judge explained the Plaintiff cannot cure any of the myriad defects she identified in his complaint by filing an amended pleading. Attached to the Magistrate Judge's Report was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge's extremely thorough analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the Court dismisses this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7a8ch6 from PacerMonitor.com. SOUTHEAST SERIES: Parrott Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed against Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC last March 31, 2025, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The case is captioned as Mary Parrott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00412-PLC (E.D. Mo.), and assigned to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC offers insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com STATE OF MICHIGAN: Court Tosses Witham Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the case captioned as CHARLES WITHAM, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00341-SJB (W.D. Mich.) for failure to state a claim. This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. This case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(c). Under the PLRA, the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in Ionia, Ionia County, Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred there. He sues the MDOC itself, as well as the following IBC personnel: Lieutenant Unknown Ramirez, Sergeant Unknown Rockwell, Inspector Unknown Fowler, and Corrections Officer Unknown Piggott. The Court construes Plaintiff's complaint to assert First Amendment retaliation claims, Eighth Amendment claims, and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. As relief, Plaintiff wants a civil lawsuit, maybe a class action. He also wants to be paid. Defendant MDOC Plaintiff has named the MDOC itself as a Defendant in this action. The states and their departments, however, are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity, or Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. Accordingly, the MDOC will be dismissed as a Defendant. Defendants Ramirez and Rockwell By failing to mention Defendants Ramirez and Rockwell in the body of his complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege how Defendants Ramirez and Rockwell allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Ramirez and Rockwell fall far short of the minimal pleading standards under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are subject to dismissal. First Amendment Retaliation Claims Plaintiff suggests that Defendant Piggott retaliated against him for his grievances and PREA complaints by kicking Plaintiff's food under the door and issuing him a class II misconduct, and that his classification as STG I was in retaliation for refusing to sign off on grievances and complaints. In this case, Plaintiff sets forth that he filed grievances and PREA complaints and, therefore, has alleged sufficient facts to suggest that he engaged in protected conduct for purposes of his First Amendment claims. However, even assuming, without deciding, that the actions noted above constitute adverse actions, Plaintiff's allegations of retaliatory motive are entirely conclusory. With respect to Defendant Piggott, Plaintiff fails to allege facts suggesting that Defendant Piggott took any of the actions described by Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's grievances and PREA complaints. Moreover, although Plaintiff suggests that he was classified as an STG 1 shortly after telling Defendant Fowler that he would not sign off on his grievances and PREA complaints, Plaintiff's complaint is wholly devoid of facts suggesting that Defendant Fowler was personally involved in Plaintiff's classification to STG 1. Plaintiff merely alleged the ultimate fact of retaliation without providing sufficient supporting factual allegations to suggest that Defendants Piggott and Fowler were motivated by Plaintiff's protected conduct. Such "conclusory allegations of retaliatory motive 'unsupported by material facts'" do not state a claim under Section 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Piggott and Fowler will be dismissed. Eighth Amendment Claims The Court has construed Plaintiff's complaint to assert Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Piggott regarding the fact that he kicked food under Plaintiff's cell door, verbally harassed Plaintiff, and continuously "grabbed" at Plaintiff. The Court has also construed Plaintiff's complaint to assert an Eighth Amendment claim premised upon his classification as STG 1. The Court finds Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim regarding his classification as an STG 1 member. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims The Court has construed Plaintiff's complaint to assert Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendant Piggott premised upon the issuance of the class II misconduct to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's complaint, however, does not have any factual allegations from which the Court could infer that Defendant Piggott framed Plaintiff. Plaintiff's allegations, therefore, fall short of demonstrating the sort of egregious conduct that would support a substantive due process claim. Accordingly, any intended Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims will also be dismissed. Having conducted the review required by the PLRA, the Court determines that Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(c). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F8jT4O from PacerMonitor.com. SYSCO: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Fite Case Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Sysco Sacramento, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned as GLENN FITE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYSCO SACRAMENTO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01633-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Glenn Fite and David Garcia allege they were employed by Defendant Sysco Sacramento, Inc. from September 2017 to March 2018 and June 2015 to March 2022 respectively as non-exempt, hourly workers entitled to all benefits of employment under California law, including meal and rest breaks and minimum wages. Plaintiffs filed this class action on Sept. 10, 2021, alleging six causes of action in their operative Third Amended Complaint for: (1) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay minimum wages under California Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-2001; (3) failure to provide rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and IWC Wage Order 7-2001; (4) failure to provide meal periods under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512, and IWC Wage Order 7-2001; (5) failure to timely pay wages due at termination under Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; and (6) failure to issue itemized employee wage statements under Labor Code sections 226, 1174, and 1175. The Court subsequently dismissed Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action pursuant to a stipulation by the Parties. Thus, Plaintiffs proceed on their claims for unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and waiting time penalties only. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's productivity and accuracy standards created a work environment whereby Plaintiffs were forced to work off-the-clock and through their meal and rest periods to avoid discipline. Defendants argue that each of Plaintiffs' claims arising from these allegations is preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because Defendant is a party to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 137 that governs the employment of all warehouse associates at Defendant's distribution center where Plaintiffs were employed. Defendant argues that the CBA explicitly addresses meal and rest periods, wages, discipline, and grievance and arbitration procedures, and that Plaintiffs' claims require the Court to interpret those CBA terms to resolve the claims, triggering preemption. It further argues that, because the claims are preempted by the LMRA, Plaintiffs are required to exhaust the grievance procedures provided in the CBA prior to bringing suit. However, given that Plaintiffs have not alleged hat they exhausted the contractual remedies provided by the CBA, the claims preempted by Section 301 must be dismissed as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish the necessary elements of a viable Court action under Section 301. Thus, Defendant asks that the Court grant judgment on Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' claims do not require any interpretation of the CBA's terms and are thus not preempted by the LRMA. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bH0tig from PacerMonitor.com. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Howington, et al. Lose Bid for TRO -------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarch of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order in the case captioned as DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.). On April 4, 2025, plaintiffs Deborah Howington, James Perry, Elena Huizar, Lacey Bostick, Modupe Adesemoye, Marc Popisteanu, Nicole Carrier, Michael Winn, Edward McKinley, Wendy Lara Prieto, Luis Zepeda, Phillip Sterbinsky, and Samuel Langley moved for a temporary restraining order. They seek an order requiring defendants Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., TSMC North America, TSMC Technology, Inc., TSMC Arizona Corporation, and TSMC Washington, LLC to rescind a March 18, 2025 decision terminating the employment of putative class member Michelle Bernardo and to immediately reinstate Ms. Bernardo's employment in the human resources department. In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege employment discrimination by TSMC. According to the operative first amended complaint, TSMC engages in an intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination against individuals who are not of East Asian race, not of Taiwanese or Chinese national origin, and who are not citizens of Taiwan or China, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, promotion, and retention/termination decisions. Additionally, they allege that TSMC routinely subjects non-East Asians (including those who are not of Taiwanese or Chinese descent) to a hostile work environment where verbal abuse, gaslighting, isolation, and humiliation is common, and oftentimes leads to the constructive discharge of these employees. They assert class claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 for disparate treatment on the basis of race and citizenship, as well as for a hostile work environment (based on race), and under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2 for disparate treatment based on race and national origin, disparate impact based on race and national origin, as well as for a hostile work environment (based on race and national origin). Certain plaintiffs also assert individual claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and/or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2. The original putative class action complaint was filed on Aug. 22, 2024 by plaintiff Deborah Howington. On Nov. 8, 2024, Ms. Howington filed the operative FAC, adding twelve additional named plaintiffs. On Feb. 5, 2025, plaintiffs sent to TSMC a draft proposed second amended complaint. Among other things, the SAC proposes to add Ms. Bernardo as a named plaintiff with respect to certain class claims and to add an individual retaliation claim for Ms. Bernardo (and several others) under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. The Court finds plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are entitled to their requested preliminary injunctive relief. According to the Court, as a preliminary matter, plaintiffs have not demonstrated their standing to obtain, or the Court's authority to grant, their requested preliminary injunctive relief, which they seek solely for Ms. Bernardo individually. Judge DeMarch explains, "Ms. Bernardo is not a party to this action. And while plaintiffs maintain that Ms. Bernardo is a putative class member (of class(es) that have yet to be certified), plaintiffs' TRO motion is premised on Ms. Bernardo's individual claim for retaliation that is not in the case." Plaintiffs argue that Rule 23(d) supplies the necessary authority for this Court to grant their request for preliminary injunctive relief. However, they have presented no authority supporting their assertion that Rule 23(d) vests the Court with authority to grant preliminary injunctive relief going to the merits of the action. Even if there was no question regarding plaintiffs' standing or the Court's authority to grant their requested injunction, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of Ms. Bernardo's proposed individual claim for retaliation. According to the Court, Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable harm warranting the issuance of a TRO. Additionally, under the circumstances presented, the Court finds that requiring TSMC to reinstate Ms. Bernardo to the very position of trust that the company claims she breached would indeed impose a burden on TSMC. Accordingly, they have not shown that the balance of equities tips sharply, or otherwise, in Ms. Bernardo's favor, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G9JHBl from PacerMonitor.com. TEKUMO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melchor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKUMO LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV462485 (Cal. Super., April 1, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Melchor was employed by the Defendants as a technician. Tekumo Inc. provides technological solutions. The Company offers a service delivery platform designed to automate the installation and maintenance of products by offering an on-demand service, as well as providing a smart interface for the monitoring and management of connected devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com - and - Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP APC 177 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Email: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com TENNECO: Parker, et al.'s Bid to Amend ERISA Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judith E. Levy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied part the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned as Tanika Parker, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tenneco Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-10816 (E.D. Mich.). Tenneco Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint is denied as moot. On behalf of the DRiV 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and the Tenneco 401(k) Investment Plan, themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against Tenneco Inc., DRiV Automotive, Inc., Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc., FederalMogul Corporation, Federal-Mogul LLC, Federal-Mogul Powertrain LLC, the Tenneco Benefits Committee, and Tenneco Benefits & Pension Investment Committee, as well as unnamed individuals, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The lawsuit was transferred to the Court from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to bring the factual allegations and claims up to date and amend and expand upon them based on new information learned since Plaintiffs filed their last pleading in a different court over two years ago, and to provide additional and more-specific allegations to address alleged technical deficiencies. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' request, arguing that amendment would be futile, because the proposed second amended complaint: (1) violates the pleading requirements of Rules 8 and 10; (2) rests on conclusory allegations and a formulaic recitation of the elements in violation of the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards; and (3) seeks to add certain claims that are time-barred. These arguments related to futility are the sole basis Defendants present for denying leave to amend. The Court finds that while allowing some of the amendments in the proposed SAC would be futile, granting leave to file other portions would not be futile. It therefore holds that leave to amend should be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs may file the proposed SAC with the exclusion of: 1. any of Plaintiffs' claims that rely on asserting that Defendants have fiduciary status solely because they signed Form 5500s, such as their claims regarding Lynette Vollink and Jeff Bowen; 2. any of Plaintiffs' claims that rely on the assertion that the Federal-Mogul Defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the DRiV Plan; 3. Plaintiffs' allegations in the first, second, fifth, and sixth claims that Defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries; and 4. Plaintiffs' third and fourth claims, which assert a failure to adequately monitor. According to the Court, these claims are futile, because they would be unable to survive a motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JdNNAs from PacerMonitor.com. TEVA PHARMA: Maryland County May Add One Custodian -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. et al.'s motion to compel Plaintiff Anne Arundel County, Md., to designate additional custodians for purposes of Phase I timeliness discovery. Specifically, the Court ordered the County to add in-house counsel Hamilton Tyler as a custodian but declined to require the inclusion of two other attorneys, Jennifer Marshall and Colleen Klasmeier. Plaintiffs -- representing a proposed class -- allege Defendants and their co-conspirators entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement and conspired to safeguard their monopoly on Nuvigil, a wakefulness drug with the generic name Armodafinil. Plaintiffs allege Defendants agreed to stay out of the EpiPen market, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. In exchange, Plaintiffs contend, Mylan and Pfizer agreed to stay out of the Nuvigil market, allowing Defendants to maintain their Nuvigil monopoly. Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert four claims: (1) a Sherman Act claim; (2) claims for Conspiracy and Combination in Restraint of Trade under various state laws; (3) claims for Monopolization and Monopolistic Scheme under various state laws; and (4) a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim. Anne Arundel joined the lawsuit as a named Plaintiff with the filing of the First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 5, 2023. Defendants raised issues regarding the custodians designated by Anne Arundel and requested additional Phase I custodians be designated. At an October 28, 2024 discovery conference, Anne Arundel argued the additional custodians Defendants requested were duplicative of its five already-named custodians and that Defendants' request was premature as Plaintiffs had not yet produced any documents. The Court agreed Defendants' request for additional custodians was premature and ordered the parties to further confer after review of Anne Arundel's substantially completed document productions. The parties provided an update on the status of their custodian dispute at a January 28, 2025 status conference. Anne Arundel substantially completed its production of documents on January 31, 2025. After Defendants reviewed that document production, they emailed Anne Arundel renewing their request for additional custodians, stating "Anne Arundel does not appear to have produced any documents that actually are responsive to [Defendants'] RFPs for which it agreed to produce documents." Unable to resolve the dispute after further email exchanges, Defendants timely filed their motion requesting Anne Arundel designate additional Phase I custodians on February 14, 2025. The Court found that Defendants had satisfied their burden of demonstrating Tyler was a key individual likely to possess relevant and non-duplicative documents. Citing Tyler's declaration, the Court noted that as Deputy County Attorney in charge of Anne Arundel's Litigation Section, he oversaw affirmative litigation and directed the County's submission of a claim related to the EpiPen class action settlement. Moreover, Tyler was identified in discovery responses as a key participant in communications with outside counsel regarding the potential Nuvigil litigation between April and June 2023. The County's privilege log also revealed his frequent involvement in the relevant investigation. By contrast, the Court determined that attorneys Marshall and Klasmeier had minimal and sporadic involvement in the matters pertinent to Phase I discovery. Marshall, who primarily handles employment defense litigation, was involved in filing a claim in the EpiPen MDL but had limited involvement in the present litigation. Klasmeier, who focuses on legislation and budget matters, had only indirect and historical connections to pharmaceutical litigation. Given their limited roles, the Court concluded that the designation of Tyler alone as a custodian would sufficiently capture relevant documents from the Office of Law. Turning to proportionality under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), the Court rejected Anne Arundel's objections that adding Tyler as a custodian would impose undue burden and expense. The County argued that Tyler's files would likely contain privileged materials, particularly internal and outside counsel communications, which would require extensive review and logging. However, the Court noted the absence of any specific evidence quantifying the anticipated burden and declined to credit unsupported assertions. The Court emphasized that Defendants had agreed to use defined search terms and that the County's privilege review obligations would be limited to responsive documents. To balance the burden of discovery with its utility, the Court ordered Anne Arundel to designate only Tyler as a new custodian. It encouraged the parties to confer about potential refinements to search terms and privilege log requirements, particularly given Tyler's role as legal counsel. The Court also scheduled a discovery conference for May 7, 2025, and directed the parties to submit a joint report by May 5, 2025, summarizing the results of the search and any disputes. Production of non-privileged documents and the corresponding privilege log are due within 30 days of the order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4I2pe8 from PacerMonitor.com. The case was originally captioned as Edgar et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd. et al., Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.). It's now styled as Burge et al. v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., et al.., Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.). TIVITY HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bid in Strougo Suit OK'd in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit titled ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.). Lead Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of all of those who purchased Tivity Health, Inc. ("Tivity") stock between March 8, 2019, and Feb. 19, 2020, bring this putative class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) ("Securities Exchange Act"). Prior to consolidation, Robert Strougo filed the initial complaint in this action. For ease of reference, Judge Crenshaw notes that the parties and the Court have kept Strougo's name in the caption even though Sheet Metal Workers is the Lead Plaintiff. The Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Tivity, former Tivity Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Donato Tramuto, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Adam C. Holland, and President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Dawn Zier misled investors about the success of Tivity's acquisition of Nutrisystem, Inc., as well as the valuation of Tivity's goodwill and the Nutrisystem tradename. Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which has been fully briefed, and heard at oral argument. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion. The Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Status Conference, which is opposed by the Defendants, will be granted. On Dec. 10, 2018, Tivity announced it would acquire Nutrisystem. At that time, Tramuto served as Tivity's CEO, and Holland served as its CFO. The next month, Tivity included "financial forecasts prepared by Nutrisystem management" in its January 2019 Form S-4, which included Nutrisystem's estimated adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("aEBITDA") of $763 million. On Feb. 19, 2019, Nutrisystem announced that it reduced its 2019 revenue guidance to the range of $682 to $702 million and adjusted EBITDA between $100 and $110 million. The same day, Tivity issued earnings guidance for 2019, which reflected Nutrisystem's adjusted reduced 2019 guidance and predicted: $1.146 billion to $1.177 billion in revenue; $240 million to $258 million in aEBITDA; and $9 million to $12 million in cost synergies. On March 8, 2019, Tivity announced the closing of its acquisition. That day, Tivity recorded $445.7 million as the value of Nutrisystem's goodwill, and $800 million as the value of Nutrisystem's tradename. Following the acquisition, Zier, who was Nutrisystem's former President and CEO, became Tivity's President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO"). Keira Krausz, who was Nutrisystem's former Nutrisystem Chief Marketing Officer, became Tivity's President of the Nutrition Business Unit. On May 8, 2019, Tivity affirmed its Feb. 19, 2019 guidance in its earnings results for Q1 2019. In its release, Tivity noted that it was including Nutrisystem's financial results for only a portion of Q1 2019 following the closing of the transaction, but did not include Nutrisystem's financial results for the stub period from Jan. 1, 2019, to March 7, 2019 ("Stub Period"). It further stated that the Nutrisystem integration was "on track." This was based on the reported aEBITDA for the Nutrisystem segment (i.e., the "nutrition segment") from March 8 to March 31, 2019, that came to $13.3 million, ensuring Tivity was moving toward its continued expectation to deliver $9 million to $12 million in cost synergies for 2019. A day later, Tivity filed its Form 10-Q for Q1 2019, including in its balance sheet the $445.7 million in goodwill and $800 million in intangible assets for the Nutrisystem tradename that Tivity recorded on the day the acquisition closed. It also included pro forma financials describing Tivity's results as if the acquisition of Nutrisystem had occurred on Jan. 1, 2018. On Aug. 7, 2019, Tivity issued another press release announcing its earnings for Q2 2019. That release stated that revenues increased to $340 million, including nutrition segment revenues of $182.9 million; income from continuing operations was $18.1 million; net goodwill of $791.7 million. In its release, Tivity reduced its 2019 earnings guidance on the nutrition segment as follows: Revenues: $534 million to $550 million (previous 2019 guidance) to $502 million to $512 million (updated 2019 guidance); and Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA: $91 million to $101 million (previous 2019 guidance) to $80 million to $84 million (updated 2019 guidance). Tramuto told investors that a comprehensive optimization plan had been developed that Tivity believed would result in improved results for the 2020 diet season for the nutrition business. That day, Tivity filed with the SEC an earnings supplement presentation describing its Q2 2019 performance and reduced financial guidelines. As relevant here, Tivity's filing included updated 2019 guidance for the nutrition segment based on when it acquired Nutrisystem, as well as for all of 2019. On Nov. 5, 2019, in Q3 2019, Tivity released a memo describing an impairment assessment it conducted on the Nutrisystem segment. In it, Tivity concluded no impairment existed as of the test date as the fair value of the reporting unit of $1.436 billion exceeded its carrying value of $1.183 billion. Further, according to the memo, Tivity performed a quantitative impairment test of the Nutrisystem tradename in connection with the triggering event identified and concluded no impairment existed as of the test date as the fair value of the tradename of $829 million exceeds its carrying value of $800 million. On Nov. 12, 2019, Tivity issued a press release affirming its Aug. 7, 2019 guidance. In that release, Tramuto stated that the nutrition segment had met Tivity's expectations reflecting an improved focus on execution and new investments in strategy. The same day, Tivity filed an earnings supplement presentation with the SEC, describing its Q3 2019 performance and again included slides comparing guidance for the nutrition segment for the period that Tivity owned Nutrisystem, and for all of 2019. Less than a month later, on Dec. 9, 2019, Tivity announced that effective Dec. 4, 2019, the employment relationship between Tivity and Dawn M. Zier, the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, was mutually terminated. As relevant here, on Feb. 19, 2020, Tivity issued two separate press releases (collectively, "Corrective Disclosure"). First, Tivity issued a press release announcing its Q4 2019 and full year 2019 results, as well as providing financial guidance for Q1 and full year of 2020 ("Financial Press Release"). The Financial Press Release opened with the evaluation of the nutrition segment. The Financial Press Release provided, among other things, information on the nutrition segment, disclosing the $8.3 million Nutrisystem pre-merger aEBITDA losses from the Stub Period. Second, Tivity issued a press release stating that Tramuto was terminated "without cause" as the Company's Chief Executive Officer effective Feb. 18, 2020 ("Employment Press Release"). The Employment Press Release also stated that Krausz resigned from her position as President of the Nutrition Business Unit. By close of the market the next day, Tivity's stock price fell by more than $10.00 per share--more than 45% in share value--to close at $12.50 per share. Following the instant events, Lead Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund brought suit against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lead Plaintiff alleges, and now seeks to prove to a jury, that: (1) leading up to and after the Nutrisystem acquisition, the Defendants painted a deceitfully optimistic picture of the acquisition through false statements exaggerating Nutrisystem's financial status alongside omissions of Nutrisystem's aEBITDA loss from the Stub Period ("Nutrisystem Claim"); and (2) the Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in Tivity's quarterly filings starting in 2019 regarding Nutrisystem's tradename and goodwill, failing to account for their impairments ("Goodwill Claim"). Now before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lead Plaintiff's Section 10(b), 20(a), and scheme claims. The Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on all of the Lead Plaintiff's claims, or at minimum, a shortened class period. The Lead Plaintiff disagrees, arguing there are genuine disputes of material fact on all issues the Defendants raise that make summary judgment inappropriate, and that the Defendants' request for a shortened class period is baseless. At this stage, viewing the facts in the Lead Plaintiff's favor, Judge Crenshaw finds that it has established a genuine dispute of material fact on both prongs of the first element of its Nutrisystem Claim. Judge Crenshaw opines, among other things, that the Lead Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the Defendants had a duty to disclose Nutrisystem's Stub Period loss considering Tivity's prior misleading financial disclosures. Critically, it is undisputed that Tivity did not disclose Nutrisystem's Stub Period loss in its initial results for Q1 2019. Because there is sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on whether explicit disclosure of the Nutrisystem $8.3 million aEBITDA loss would have significantly altered the total information available to investors, whether, when, and to what extent the Defendants made a material omission in not disclosing that loss is a dispute of fact best resolved by the jury, Judge Crenshaw says. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion will be denied on this ground. Viewing the entire record before the Court in the Lead Plaintiff's favor, Judge Crenshaw holds that the evidence presents more than just a hindsight critique of assumptions made by the Defendants in calculating Tivity's goodwill and Nutrisystem tradename such that there is a genuine dispute of fact on whether Defendants made misleading or false statements in Tivity's financials. Viewing all this evidence in the Lead Plaintiff's favor, there is a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the Defendants made false or misleading statements about the value of Tivity's goodwill and the Nutrisystem tradename that the jury must resolve at trial. Considering the record in the Lead Plaintiff's favor, Judge Crenshaw points out that a reasonable juror could find that the Defendants purposely misled investors into thinking the Nutrisystem acquisition was a success by omitting the Nutrisystem Stub Period loss in Tivity's initial financial disclosures and hiding that loss in subsequent disclosures. Given this, the Court does not find this to be one of the unusual circumstances in which summary judgment is appropriate on scienter. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Defendants' motion will be denied on scienter on the Nutrisystem Claim. Considering evidence together and in the Lead Plaintiff's favor, the Court finds there is a genuine dispute of fact on whether the Defendants had the requisite scienter on the Goodwill Claim. Viewing the record evidence under the totality of the circumstances, Judge Crenshaw says a reasonable juror could conclude the Defendants intentionally misconstrued Tivity's goodwill and Nutrisystem tradename values to hide that the Nutrisystem acquisition failed. Given the conflicting evidence in the record, the Defendant's motion will be denied on scienter for the Goodwill Claim. The Defendants also argue, among other things, that summary judgment is warranted to the extent the Lead Plaintiff seeks damages resulting from the announcement of Zier's departure. The Court will grant the Defendants' motion on the damages the Lead Plaintiff seeks connected to the announcement of Zier's departure from Tivity. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion will be granted on the Lead Plaintiff's requested damages pertaining to Zier's departure and will be denied in all other respects. Because the Court has considered the authority cited in the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Status Conference, the Lead Plaintiff's motion will be granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fn2k8ph from PacerMonitor.com. TRANE US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bradley Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- JEROME BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE U.S. INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00456 (M.D. Tenn., April 23, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bradley was employed by the Defendant as a work lead. Trane US Inc. manufactures and distributes heating and air ventilation systems and equipment. The Company markets its products to retail outlets, construction companies, and HVAC maintenance and repair companies worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: Court Consolidates Two Securities Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated these actions: 1. MATAY GABOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against- TRANSOCEAN LTD., JEREMY D. THIGPEN, MARK L. MEY, and THAD VAYDA, Defendants, Case No. 24 Civ. 9964 2. DAVID MATTESON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against- TRANSOCEAN LTD., JEREMY D. THIGPEN, MARK L. MEY, and THAD VAYDA, Defendants, Case No. 25 Civ. 1112 These actions are consolidated under the caption In re Transocean Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 24 Civ. 9964. The Court appoints John Mahoney as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead counsel. Plaintiffs, Matay Gabor and David Matteson, filed securities class actions against Defendants, Transocean Ltd., Transocean Chief Executive Officer Jeremy D. Thigpen, former Transocean Chief Financial Officer Mark L. Mey, and current Transocean Chief Financial Officer Thad Vayda, bringing claims under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78a et seg. Transocean is a global drilling contractor that owns or operates offshore drilling rigs. Plaintiffs allege that, in 2023 and 2024, Defendants made statements claiming that Transocean was in a strong economic position and that its financial statements accurately estimated the value of its assets. However, on Sept. 3, 2024, before the market opened, Transocean announced that it had agreed to sell two of its rigs for $342 million, which would result in an impairment of nearly twice that amount, indicating that the assets had not been accurately valued. That day, Transocean's share price fell $0.42, or 8.86%, on an "unusually heavy" trading volume. In December 2024, Matay Gabor sued Defendants, asserting that they made materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Transocean's business. In February 2025, David Matteson also sued Defendants, alleging essentially the same facts and causes of action. Later that month, several putative class members independently moved to consolidate the two actions and for the appointment of themselves and their attorneys as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court must now decide whether the actions should be consolidated and whether putative class members John Mahoney or Patrick Kocher and John Fogel, applying together as the "Transocean Investor Group", should be appointed as lead plaintiff and their attorneys as lead counsel. In this case, four sets of putative class members have moved for consolidation, and no party opposes it, a consideration which weighs heavily against the potential for prejudice. The complaints in both cases involve essentially the same facts and alleged misstatements, and resolving these actions separately would be judicially inefficient. Accordingly, consolidation is appropriate, the Court finds. The Court finds that Mahoney, with a LIFO loss of $335,097, has the largest financial interest in this litigation. The Court also finds Mahoney has made a prima facie showing that he satisfies Rule 23(a)'s requirements. His claims are typical of the class: He alleges that he purchased Transocean stock during the class period, that Transocean made materially false or misleading statements that caused its stock price to be inflated, and that he suffered damages when the truth about Transocean emerged. Mahoney has also demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that he will adequately represent the interests of the class. Because Mahoney made a timely motion to serve as lead plaintiff, has the greatest financial interest in the litigation, and appears to satisfy the applicable requirements of Rule 23(a), he is the presumptive lead plaintiff, the Court concludes. Mahoney has retained Levi & Korsinsky to serve as lead counsel for the class. Accordingly, Levi & Korsinsky is appointed lead counsel A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HtD2Lu from PacerMonitor.com. TRANSPORTES AEREOS: Settlement in Tower Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Stacey D. Adams of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as JON TOWER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGUESES, S.A. D/B/A TAP AIR PORTUGAL, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-06746-JKS-SDA (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Jon Tower filed an Unopposed Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and (g) to grant preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A. d/b/a Tap Air Portugal, and to appoint the law firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP, as Settlement Class Counsel. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, and all of its Settlement terms, as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23, subject to further consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: All ticketholders who are citizens of the United States who purchased with dollars a flight scheduled to depart between March 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021 (a) that TAP canceled; (b) who requested a refund for the ticket as reflected in TAP's customer care, refund databases, call logs or other information within its possession, custody, or control; (c) did not receive a refund before a claim has been submitted and paid; and (d) who have not used any portion of any flight credit issued in connection with the canceled flight document. For purposes of (a) above, flights that TAP canceled in response to a government order, if any, shall not be excluded. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) all Judges who have presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current employees, officers, directors, agents and representatives of Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate, parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) any Settlement Class Member who, prior to the date of the Settlement Agreement, settled with and released Defendant or any Released Parties from any Released Claims; and (j) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely and proper Opt-Out from the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily appoints the law firms of Carella Byrne and GPM as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiff Jon Tower and Bianca Vazquez as Settlement Class Representatives. The Court preliminarily appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the Settlement Claims Administrator. The Court preliminarily finds, solely for purposes of the Settlement, that the Rule 23 criteria for certification of the Settlement Class exists in that: (a) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all Settlement Class Members in the Action is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class that predominate over individual questions; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) the Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel have and will continue to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Settlement Class; and (e) a class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. In addition, the Court preliminarily finds that certification of the Settlement Class is appropriate when balanced against the risks and delays of further litigation. The proceedings that occurred before the Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement afforded counsel the opportunity to adequately assess the claims and defenses in the Action, the relative positions, strengths, weaknesses, risks, and benefits to each Party, and as such, to negotiate a Settlement Agreement that is fair, reasonable and adequate and reflects those considerations. The Court also preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement has been reached as a result of intensive, arm's-length negotiations of disputed claims, including through the use and assistance of an experienced third-party neutral mediator, and that the proposed Settlement is not the result of any collusion. Final Fairness Hearing will be held on October 23, 25 at 10:00 a.m. at the Frank Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse 2 Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey 07102. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxkG0l from PacerMonitor.com. TRAVEL + LEISURE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Jan. 12, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Huskey, et al., v. Travel + Leisure, Co. et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00601 (M.D. Fla., Filed March 31, 2023), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order granting Joint Motion to Stay Class Discovery. -- Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay is due on or before May 11, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file for class certification is continued to Jan. 12, 2026. -- If Plaintiff files a motion for class certification, The Defendant's response is due 30 days thereafter. -- Class discovery in this case is stayed pending further order of the Court. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. The Defendant is a vacation ownership and membership travel company.[CC] UHG I LLC: Powell Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY POWELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UHG I LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00086-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification, appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Class, and appointing Abbas Kazerounian and Ryan McBride of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Nicholas Barthel of Barthel Legal, APC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) through its collection of unconscionable loans that had astronomical interest rates with an average interest rate of 175%. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes: The UCL Class "All persons with a California address from whom the Defendant attempted to collect on a loan that was purchased directly from CNU Online Holdings, LLC on behalf of one of its subsidiaries or affiliates with an annual percentage rate (APR) of 90 percent or higher between Jan. 17, 2019, and Jan. 17, 2023, and made a payment to the Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: The Debt Collection Class "All persons with a California address against whom the Defendant filed a lawsuit, and the subject debt of the lawsuit was purchased directly from CNU Online Holdings, LLC on behalf of one of its subsidiaries or affiliates between Jan. 17, 2022, and Jan. 17, 2023. Excluded from the proposed classes are Defendant's officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the proposed classes is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Defendant is a third-party debt buyer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cCZwbu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com - and - Nicholas Barthel, Esq. BARTHEL LEGAL, APC 2173 Salk Ave., Ste. 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 259-0033 Facsimile: (760) 536-9010 E-mail: nick@barthelbarthel.com UNIQUE ON THE GO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Da Silva Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- RENATO LUIS DA SILVA; PAULO FERRARI JR.; FERNANDA GARCIA; RAFAEL MACHADO DE CAMARGO; ANDRES MARTINEZ; JULIANA MAYER; RAUL E. NOVILLO MONTES; LUIS ROCHA; and CRISTIAN CAMILIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQUE ON THE GO CORP.; HERTZ CORPORATION; DOLLAR CAR RENTAL; and SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC, Defendants, Case 1:25-cv-00647 (E.D. Va., April 16, 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff. Unique on the Go Corp. is a of labor and staffing solutions for facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq. THE HENNESSY LAW FIRM, PLLC 4015 Chain Bridge Road, Suite G Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 865-8836 Facsimile: (703) 865-7633 Email: thennessy@virginiawage.net UNITED SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Moreno Due August 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO OLGUIN-MORENO, GIA MCELROY, SEANN MULLEN and RONALD DONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and GARRISON PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:24-cv-00474-WLH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order granting joint motion to extend last date to hear motion for class certification and to similarly extend all other pretrial and trial dates: -- The Plaintiffs' motion shall be filed on or before Aug. 22, 2025; -- The Defendant's opposition shall be filed on or before Oct. 10, 2025; -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed on or before Nov. 14, 2025; and -- The following shall be the briefing schedule for any motion(s) for summary judgment: a. Last day to meet and confer shall be May 29, 2026; b. The Movant's portion of the Joint Brief, Joint Appendix of Facts, and Joint Appendix of Evidence shall be exchanged on or before June 12, 2026; c. Opposing party's portion of the Joint Brief, Joint Appendix of Facts, and Joint Appendix of Evidence shall be exchanged on or before July 10, 2026; d. Movant shall file the Joint Brief, Joint Appendix of Facts, and Joint Appendix of Evidence and a Notice of Motion and Motion on or before July 17, 2026; and e. Movant shall file its reply on or before July 24, 2026. United Services provides insurance, banking, and retirement solutions primarily to members of the U.S. military, veterans, and their families. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UjURZz at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Enforces Settlement Agreement in J.O.P. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland will grant the class counsel's emergency motion to enforce the settlement agreement and motions to proceed under pseudonym in the case captioned as J.O.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01944-SAG (D. Md.). In this class action litigation, filed in 2019, a Plaintiff Class comprised of persons who entered this country as unaccompanied minors and later sought asylum sued the government Defendants. The Class sought to enforce its members' rights to have their asylum applications adjudicated on the merits by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while they remained physically present in the United States. The two parties in this case worked for many months, with the assistance of two different magistrate judges, to agree on the terms of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement last year. Once fully agreed, the parties executed the agreement, provided notice of the proposed agreement to the Plaintiff Class, and attended a fairness hearing before the Court. The Court granted final approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement in November, 2024 and retained jurisdiction to enforce its provisions. Defendants have now removed at least one Class Member from this country without adjudication of his asylum petition on the merits by USCIS. As a result, at this stage of the proceedings, both parties agree that this is just a breach of contract case. It is not a habeas case, or a case assessing the propriety of the government's recent invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The Settlement Agreement defines the certified Class as all individuals nationwide who prior to February 24, 2025: (1) were determined to be a UAC; and (2) who filed an asylum application that was pending with USCIS; and (3) on the date they filed their asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United States who is available to provide care and physical custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the individual's asylum application on the merits. Section III.B is among the Settlement Agreement's core protections for Class Members which are relevant to the motion at issue. Section III.B provides that "USCIS will exercise Initial Jurisdiction over Class Members' asylum applications in accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement and adjudicate them on the merits." Other provisions of the Settlement Agreement require USCIS's exercise of initial jurisdiction over Class Member asylum applications. According to Robert Cerna, Acting Field Office Director Enforcement and Removal Operations at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on March 15, 2025, "aliens" were removed to El Salvador after the AEA Proclamation took effect. On that date, ICE removed Cristian, a 20-yearold Class Member from Venezuela with a pending asylum application, to prison in El Salvador, which Class Counsel argue is in clear violation of the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel filed an Emergency Motion to Enforcement the Settlement Agreement, seeking the Court's intervention to order Defendants to remedy this violation of the Settlement Agreement and prevent any further such violations. Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Contrary to Defendants' assertions, the instant motion does not sound in habeas because Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to determine the scope of Defendants' removal authority under the AEA or challenging the application of the AEA to Cristian or any other individual Class Member. Rather, Plaintiffs' motion seeks to enforce the existing Settlement Agreement," which the Court clearly has jurisdiction to do. Defendants argue that removal of Cristian did not violate the Settlement Agreement because his designation as an alien enemy pursuant to the AEA results in him ceasing to be a member of the Class as defined in Section II.E. Specifically, Defendants contend that aliens designated as alien enemies pursuant to the AEA are no longer eligible for asylum, a requirement for class membership. But, nothing in the plain language of the Class Definition or in the larger Settlement Agreement requires that USCIS have a present ability to adjudicate the application on the merits, the Court finds. Defendants' arguments that the Court should find Section III of the Settlement Agreement void and unenforceable because it violates public policy carry no weight. According to the Court, Defendants have not even attempted to meet their burden under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b) to procure relief from a final order and instead merely argue common law principles. While Defendants now assert there is a strong public interest in ensuring the safety of citizens of the United States and protecting them from foreign invasions and designated terrorist organizations, Defendants have provided no evidence, or even any specific allegations, as to how Cristian, or any other Class Member, poses a threat to public safety. The Court finds Defendants have breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement by removing at least one Class Member from the United States while his asylum application remains pending with USCIS. The Court will order Defendants to facilitate Cristian's return to the United States so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties' binding Settlement Agreement. This Court further orders that facilitating Cristian's return includes, but is not limited to, Defendants making a good faith request to the government of El Salvador to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS. Motions to Proceed Under Pseudonym The Class Members at issue in this case are two Venezuelan youth seeking asylum in the United States. The Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that disclosure of their identities poses a risk of retaliatory harm. According to the Court, they clearly face the risk of retaliatory harm in their home country, as well as in detention in El Salvador and potentially within the United States, if their identities are made public. The threat of physical retaliatory harm within El Salvador's prisons and within the United States has prompted other courts considering analogous factual circumstances to permit pseudonymity. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MPWRRx from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Court Grants Civil Immigration Detainees' TRO Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the petitioners-plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary restraining order in the case captioned as D.B.U. and R.M.M., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States: PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT GAUDIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and DAWN CEJA, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, in her official capacity, Respondents-Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS (D. Colo.). Petitioners-Plaintiffs are civil immigration detainees who fear imminent transfer from this judicial district and removal without adequate notice. Their fear is premised on the President's use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove noncitizens from the United States. On March 14, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation designating Tren de Aragua (TdA) a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" and declaring, among other things, TdA "is perpetuating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." The Act is a law of the United States that vested in the President the authority to proclaim and direct that TdA was invading the territory of the United States; its members are a danger to the public peace or safety of the United States; and, fundamentally, the power to direct that all Alien Enemies described in the Proclamation are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal. The Proclamation's understanding of what the Act empowers -- the powers it "vests" -- gives rise to Petitioners' habeas claims and TRO motion. Fearing imminent risk of removal pursuant to the Proclamation without any hearing or meaningful review, on April 12, 2025, Petitioners filed their Class Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Consistent with their class petition, in the TRO motion Petitioners seek emergency relief on the grounds that they are in imminent danger of being transferred outside this judicial district en route to removal, and seek an injunction prohibiting their transfer and 30-day notice of any intent to remove Petitioners and the opportunity to contest an alien enemy designation. Respondents argue that because Petitioners challenge their removal under the Proclamation and they are not facing removal under the Proclamation or the Act, that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioners' habeas action. Petitioners contend the TRO record and relevant decisional law do not undermine this Court's jurisdiction. The Court agrees with Petitioners. The Court finds Petitioners have satisfied the habeas "in custody" jurisdictional requirement. The Court agrees with Petitioners that their claims are justiciable, and that they have met their Article III standing burden. Moreover, "other principles" regarding judicial review identified by Respondents do not bar adjudication of Petitioners' claims, the Court notes. In their efforts to forestall asking whether Petitioners have satisfied the relevant factors to secure temporary injunctive relief, Respondents argue the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the Court of authority to enjoin them from transferring Petitioners or putative class members outside" the District of Colorado. The Court notes that, although positioned as threshold matter preceding analysis of the TRO factors in Respondents' brief, Respondents' argument addresses the relief the Court can grant, given Petitioners are currently detained under the INA, not the Act and Proclamation. Petitioners discern no obstacles to relief in the INA provisions Respondents identify. The Court agrees with Petitioners. The Court concludes Petitioners have met their burden of showing preliminary injunctive relief, in the form of a TRO, is proper. Because Petitioners have met this burden, the Court orders that Petitioners and members of the provisionally certified class shall not be transferred outside the District of Colorado. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2yu4gS from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Provisional Bid for Stay Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.V.D., et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass., Filed March 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order denying provisional motion for stay pending appeal of preliminary injunction order. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendant is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[CC] VALVE CORPORATION: Court Amends Class Definition in Wolfire Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al., v. Valve Corporation (RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION) Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order: -- Amending Class Period, And -- Granting Publisher Class Plaintiffs' Motion For Order Approving Notice Of Class Certification, And Entry Of Notice Schedule 1. The Court amends the class definition and period: "All persons or entities who, directly or through an agent, paid a commission to Valve in connection with the sale or use of a game on the Steam platform between Jan. 28, 2017 and Nov. 25, 2024, and where either (1) the person or entity was based in the United States and its territories or (2) the game was purchased or acquired by a United States-based consumer during the Class Period. Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees, and (b) the Court and its personnel. 2. The Court having previously granted Publisher the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, directs notice to be distributed to the class members pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2). Valve Corp. is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gi6Bfo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Andrew Faisman, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 Facsimile: (206) 905-7100 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com andrewfaisman@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Ankur Kapoor, Esq. Noah Brecker-Redd, Esq. CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP 6 East 43rd St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 350-2700 Facsimile: (212) 350-2701 E-mail: akapoor@constantinecannon.com nbrecker-redd@constantinecannon.com - and - Tyre L. Tindall, Esq. McKinney Wheeler, Esq. Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq. Jordanne M. Steiner, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Telephone: (206) 883-2500 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com ttindall@wsgr.com mckinney.wheeler@wsgr.com korourke@wsgr.com jordanne.miller@wsgr.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com kjpozan@locklaw.com VENTURE GLOBAL: Response to Bids for Lead Role in Bowes Due May 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled GERALD BOWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURE GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01364-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rules that opposition to any of the pending motions to serve as lead plaintiff must be filed no later than May 19, 2025. On Feb. 17, 2025, Plaintiff Gerald Bowes filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and all other shareholders that purchased stock pursuant and/or traceable to Venture's registration statement for the initial public offering held on or about Jan. 24, 2025. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"). On April 18, 2025, Plaintiffs Ricky Vami, Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Parnia Farokhian, Rodney P. Bicknell, Carl A. Conner, Kevin McVey & Todd Havill, Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters Retirement System, and Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, filed motions and memoranda of law in support of their separate bids to serve as lead plaintiff. Judge Engelmayer holds that any opposition to any of the pending motions is to be filed no later than May 19, 2025. Any reply is to be filed by June 2, 2025. As stated in the stipulation so-ordered by the Court on March 11, 2025, within 14 days of the Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, counsel for the lead plaintiff and the Defendants will meet and confer regarding scheduling and will submit a stipulation for the Court's approval with the parties' proposed schedule for the filing of any amended complaint or motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bpa72vmy from PacerMonitor.com. VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Farley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER FARLEY and ANDREW WHEATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC. and PLANNED ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01949 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2025) arises from VSI's failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' confidential protected health information and personally identifiable information, which as a result, was stolen from VSI's systems and is now in the hands of cybercriminals. In February 2024, a ransomware group known as "BlackSuit" hacked into VSI's inadequately secured network environment and exfiltrated Plaintiffs’ and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, including their full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and unsecured health information, causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the suit. VSI provides third-party employment and benefit enrollment, administration, and data management services to consumers in connection with employer and self-funded plans. PAI is wholly owned by BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina and is a nationally licensed third-party administrator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800)-237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com VOLATO INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUANN GRAY, KHEA TREVENA and MICHAEL RICKETTS on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. VOLATO, INC. and VOLATO GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00952-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time up to and including May 5, 2025, to file their responses to the motion for class certification and approval of class representatives, class counsel, and notice filed by the Plaintiffs. On March 18, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and approval of class representatives, class counsel, and notice without prejudice. On March 31, 2025, in compliance with that Order, the Plaintiffs filed a new Motion for class certification and approval of class representatives, class counsel, and notice. Volato operates as a private jet company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i7L5do at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah J. Kuehnel, Esq. Daniel E. Kalter, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 289-1247 Facsimile: (813) 289-6530 E-mail: sarah.kuehnel@ogletree.com daniel.kalter@ogletree.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Court Dismisses Spector Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case captioned as KAREN SPECTOR, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-06617-HSG (N.D. Cal.) pursuant to Rule 25. In August 2024, Plaintiff Karen Spector filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court against Defendant Williams-Sonoma, Inc., and Defendant removed the case to this Court. On Jan. 16, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel filed a statement noting Plaintiff's death during the pendency of the action. Because Plaintiff's counsel filed the notice of Plaintiff's death on Jan. 16, 2025, a motion to substitute a proper party for Plaintiff was due April 16, 2025. After this deadline passed, Defendant filed a notice arguing that the case must be dismissed under Rule 25. Accordingly, because the deadline to substitute a proper party has passed, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint under Rule 25. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act, on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of other similarly situated individuals located in Arizona arising from Defendant's alleged use of tracking pixels in its marketing emails. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jAkjMB from PacerMonitor.com. WW INTERNATIONAL: Berger Sues Over Misleading Discount ------------------------------------------------------ MARLAYNE BERGER; and DARREN TODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00926 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2025) alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the purported discounts the Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited time—quite the opposite; signup discounts for New Multimonth Memberships are constantly available. The representations that the Plaintiffs relied on, however, were not true. The signup discounts for the New Multimonth Memberships are ongoing, not time-limited. They are always available. Had the Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiffs and other consumers would not have purchased these new Memberships, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their clients access to meetings and online subscriptions, as well as gives their members guidance and access to a supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Timely Detect Data Breach, Lemaire Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE LEMAIRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.  YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION (YNHH), Case No. 3:25-cv-00674-OAW (D. Conn., April 29, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its patients vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. On Feb. 2, 2025, YNHH, a healthcare system headquartered in New Haven, control over its computer network and the highly private Sensitive Information stored on the computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (Data Breach). Accordingly, this Data Breach impacted a staggering 5.5 million patients. The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' highly personal information, including name, Social Security Number, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, patient type, and medical information. The Plaintiff contends that cybercriminals bypassed the Defendant's inadequate security systems to access current and former patients' Sensitive Information in its computer systems. On or about March 11, 2025, the Defendant finally notified state Attorneys General and many Class Members, about the widespread Data Breach. The Plaintiff is a patient at Yale New Haven. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on her own behalf, as well as on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession.  YNHH is a nonprofit healthcare system with headquarters in New Haven, Connecticut. It is Connecticut's largest healthcare system with 2,409 beds and includes hospitals, physicians and related health services throughout Connecticut as well as New York and Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109   E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com YARDI SYSTEMS: Response to Duffy Antitrust Complaint Due May 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, signed the Parties' Stipulation and Order to extend to May 5, 2025, the deadline to respond to the complaint filed in the lawsuit titled In Re YARDI REVENUE MANAGEMENT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MCKENNA DUFFY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs McKenna Duffy and Michael Brett, and Defendant Apartment Services, Inc., stipulate that Defendant Apartment Services' deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the action is extended until May 5, 2025. The Parties assert that good cause exists for extending Apartment Services' deadline to respond to the Complaint as Apartment Services requires additional time to continue its investigation in light of new claims. The Parties further agree that this stipulation and extension does not constitute a waiver of any claim, right or defense. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx45v9a from PacerMonitor.com. Rio S. Pierce -- riop@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley, CA 94710; Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Theodore J. Wojcik -- tedw@hbsslaw.com -- Stephanie A. Verdoia -- stephaniev@hbsslaw.com -- Xiaoyi Fan -- kellyf@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Anthony Todaro -- anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP (US), in Seattle, Washington 98104-7029, Counsel for Defendant Apartment Services, Inc. ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Faces DBC Class Suit Ove Repriced Payments ------------------------------------------------------------ DANNY BACHOUA CHIROPRACTIC, APC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ZELIS HEALTHCARE, LLC, ZELIS CLAIMS INTEGRITY LLC, ZELIS NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, AETNA, INC., THE CIGNA GROUP, ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., and, HUMANA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11167 (D. Mass., April 29, 2025) is an antitrust action brought to correct an illegal and destructive market distortion in the private, commercial health insurance market. According to the complaint, Zelis has collaborated with private commercial health insurers and other payers, and at least one other repricing competitor to crush the nation's private practice of medicine. Instead of retaining or bolstering the financial incentives to motivate future medical practitioners to sustain the substantial real and opportunity costs associated with deferring income until after gaining the education, training, and other forms of preparation necessary for a medical practitioner to provide appropriate healthcare services, Zelis and its co-conspirators have formed, worked to preserve, and successfully concealed until now a conspiracy designed to suppress payments made to healthcare service providers performing services on an out-of-network basis to the greatest extent that their coordination can achieve, asserts the suit. This had the effect of permitting Zelis and its co-conspirators to reap windfall profits on the backs of hardworking healthcare professionals. The conspiracy at issue concerns the unlawful agreement, communication, coordination, and information sharing associated with collusively depressing and setting payments for out-of-network healthcare services, euphemistically known as "repricing," the suit adds. This conspiracy worked to "reprice," that is, downwardly adjust, claims made by out-of-network healthcare service providers in the following ways: Zelis obtained confidential, proprietary data, including claims, pricing, and contractual data from Commercial Payers, and developed or acquired technologies, methodologies, and other tools for the calculation and communication of repriced claims to Providers. These tools allowed for maximum amounts or ceilings to supplant any higher, individually negotiated payment by Commercial Payers. Plaintiff Danny Bachoua Chiropractic, APC is a California professional corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. DBC provides a wide range of chiropractic treatment to patients, including DTS spinal therapy, traction therapy, trigger point therapy, PNF stretching and myofascial release. Zelis Healthcare took over the responsibilities of the now apparently inactive, terminated, or withdrawn entity, Zelis Healthcare Corporation (including "Zelis Healthcare Corp." and "Zelis Healthcare, Inc.")[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. Solomon B. Cera, Esq. CERA LLP 529 Main St., Suite P200 Boston, MA 02129 Telephone: (857) 453-6555 E-mail: cdirksen@cerallp.com scera@cerallp.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com ZUBHA POP: Bran Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, IMWL ------------------------------------------------------------- Mariana Ceron Bran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, known and unknown v. Zubha Pop Foods, LLC d/b/a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Carlos Rivera, Mario Lopez and Angela Lopez, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-04622 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at fast-food restaurants operated by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs worked in various jobs including taking food orders, food preparation, working the register, cleaning tables, floors, and bathrooms, and performing other miscellaneous tasks. The Defendants required the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals to work hours in excess of 40 hours per week, says the suit. Zubha Pop Foods, LLC d/b/a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, is an American chain of fried chicken restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 420-6784 E-mail: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***