250509.mbx

250509.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 9, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 93 Headlines 2DAUGHTERS LLC: Osborne Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALLCARE PLUS: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Class Action AMERICAN BANKERS: Bid Limiting Scope of Class Discovery Tossed ANGEION GROUP: Baker Sues Over Deceptive Compensation Scheme APOLLO ENERGY: Parties Must Amend Pleadings by July 3 APPLE INC: Apicella Sues Over Mislabeled AirPods APPLOVIN CORP: Wayne County Sues Over Drop of Stock Price ASHLYNN MARKETING: Parties Seek Stay of Discovery AUSTRALIA: Court Criticizes "Excessive Fees" in Stolen Wages Suit AVIS BUDGET: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit BESTWAY SANDWICHFS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages BILL NELSON: Thomas Bid to Certify Class Stayed BRIAN FISCHER: Court Junks Parties' Summary Judgment Bids BYTEDANCE INC: J.O. Class Suit Transferred from C.D. to N.D. Cal. CAFE CORAZON: Illegally Keeps Employees' Tips, Pountney Alleges CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Jones Sues Over Violation of Privacy Act CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Must File Class Cert Bid by July 30 CARELON BEHAVIORAL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Directory CARL ZEISS: Faces Kogent Class Actionn Suit Over Merger Deal CARLTON BLAIR: Discovery Assigned to Magistrate Judge CDHA MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania CERNER CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Divulging of Information CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 13 COLOR STREET: Fields Suit Removed to C.D. California COMMERCIAL VAN INTERIORS: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY ELDERCARE: Ammons Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Breaks CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT: Tinoco Sues Over Failure to Provide Breaks CONVERSE INC: Allen Sues Over Abusive Telephone Marketing Practices COX AUTOMOTIVE: June 16 Fact Discovery Vacated in Touch Suit CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Gonzalez FDCA Class Suit in C.D. Cal. DAILYLOOK LLC: Guevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DAMERON HOSPITAL: Lalonde Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid DONALD TRUMP: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action DUDE PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over False "Made in USA" Claims ENHANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Theodore Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia ERS HOUSING: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Violations EVENFLO CO: Class Settlement in Liability Suit Gets Initial Nod FARM BUREAU: Judge Approves Class Settlement Over Tax Coverage FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Minnesota Insureds Suit for $1.95-Mil. FCA US: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Bid to Alter Class Definition FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Exclude Expert Olsen's Opinion FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seeks to Seal Portions of Expert Reports FIVE BELOW: Rodriguez Sues Over Undisclosed Lie Detector Tests FLANIGAN'S MNG'T: Gampong Seeks Certification of Collective Action FNZ GROUP: Faces Employee-Shareholder Class Action FUTURE MOTION: Spader Sues Over Strict Products Liability GEWEKE HOSPITALITY: Burriss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GMRI INC: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOODRX HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action GOODRX INC: Booneville Class Action Suit Moved to D.R.I. GOODRX INC: CAAS Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOODRX INC: DAO Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GOOGLE LLC: Kande Suit Removed to N.D. California HABIBI'S HOT CHICKEN: Erina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARRISON POULTRY: Atkinson Sues Over Recent Data Breach HISENSE GROUP: Faces Additional Suit in Ill. Over False Ads HUFFY CORPORATION: Crowe Sues Over Defective Products J. J. F. MANAGEMENT: Amrine Files Suit in D. Maryland JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action JIB HOLDINGS I: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JOY'S DELI GROCERY: Casado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KAJABI LLC: Murphy Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bordelon Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT: Anguiano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LOANCARE LLC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.9MM LOREAL USA INC: Snow Suit Transferred to S.D. New York MAR MULTISERVICES: Court Dismisses Cortez Class Suit MARTIN MARIETTA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clanton Alleges MDL 3149: Buack-Shelton v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. Cal. MDL 3149: Campbell v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Champney v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Crockran v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: E.H. v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MESSENGER: Settles Severance Pay Class Action Suit for $$4.5-Mil. MILE MARKER: Thompson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff MILLENIUM GENERAL: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MUJI U.S.A.: Carlino Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: Brent Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York NAPCO SECURITY: Shareholders Sue Over Misleading Material Info NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Athletes' Pay NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NEBRASKA BOOK: Court Certifies Class in Degroot NESPRESSO USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Machines NEWPORT HARBOR: Kavaja Sues Over Failure to Secure Information NEWPORT HARBOR: Killen Sues Over Failure to Secure Information NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines OMNI LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert in Magana Suit Due June 18 OPW FUELING: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.C. ORACLE HEALTH: Mottley Files Suit in W.D. Missouri OREGON: Clingman Sues Over Validity of Oregon Revised Statue OUTERKNOWN LLC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OVERLAND CONTRACTING: Underpays Constructions Workers, Serrano Says PARADIES SHOPS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $6.8MM PAUL EVANS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PHARMAVITE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Chemicals in Vitamins POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Schwartz Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Spicuzza Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Valdovinos Suit Transferred to S.D. Californi POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: White Suit Transferred to S.D. California RANGE RESOURCES: Notice of Class Certification Approved RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Canada Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Retirement Plans RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Seeks to Withdraw Davis as Plaintiff ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soucek Due Jan. 30, 2026 ROCKETREACH LLC: McClure Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation RVB INVESTMENT: Burns Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RW GARCIA: Melendez Class Action Remanded to State Court SCOOT EDUCATION: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHENZHEN SMOORE: Conspires to Fix Vapes' Prices, Summit Suit Claims SLICE OF ITALY: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Trafficking, Slavery in Brazil SUR LA TABLE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $550,000 TARGET CORP: Sauces' No Artificial Flavor Ads "False," Wright Says TEACHERS HEALTH: Bid to Amend Class Definition Extended to June 5 TESLA INC: Opposition to Bid for Class Cert. Extended to June 17 TRANS UNION: Agrees to Settle Credit Report Class Suit for $23MM TURQUOISE HILL: Oral Argument on Class Cert Set for June 25 TWITTER INC: Strifling Can File Certain Exhibits Under Seal TWITTER INC: Strifling Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UB HOUSE LLC: Seerag Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York UNITED HEALTHCARE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California UNITED SEATING: Peffley Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee UNITED STATES: Faces Ali Class Suit Over Foreign Students' Status UNITED STATES: Int'l Students Sue Over Termination of SEVIS Records US CLAIMS: Vactor Sues Over Unprotected Clients' Personal Info VANDERBILT MORTGAGE: Pushes Borrowers Into Unaffordable Loans VOLUME SERVICES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WINCUP INC: Heavey Suit Removed to S.D. California YALE NEW: Wise Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Patients' Info Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 350 Cases as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Receives 698 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Reports $1.28BB Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Faces Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 357 PI Lawsuits as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 5,069 Pending Claims at March 31 ********* 2DAUGHTERS LLC: Osborne Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Osborne, on behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated v. 2DAUGHTERS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00855 (N.D. Ohio, April 29, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were consistently required to, and did, work more than 40 hours per workweek. the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated overtime compensation at a rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant knowingly violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to work more than 40 hours in a workweek, while not paying them an overtime premium in an amount equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Direct Support Professional. The Defendant offers home health care services assisting individuals in their homes with daily living activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., LLC 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Phone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com ALLCARE PLUS: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Steve Alder, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that a settlement has been agreed to resolve litigation stemming from a 2022 data breach at AllCare Plus Pharmacy. The Northborough, MA-based pharmacy detected the security incident on June 21, 2022, when suspicious activity was identified in an employee's email account. The investigation confirmed that hackers gained access to the email account after the employee responded to a phishing email. The review of the account confirmed it contained names, addresses, birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license and other ID numbers, financial information, and limited health and health insurance information related to treatment and prescriptions. The breach was reported to the Maine Attorney General as affecting 5,971 individuals. A lawsuit -- Celeste Brown, et al. v. AllCare Plus Pharmacy LLC -- was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the data breach, claiming the data breach occurred due to the failure to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures and follow industry standard security best practices. According to the lawsuit, had those measures been implemented, the data breach could have been prevented. AllCare Plus Pharmacy maintains that there was no wrongdoing and that it had meritorious defenses in place; however, the pharmacy chose to settle the litigation to prevent further legal costs and to avoid the risks and uncertainty associated with continuing to fight the litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, individuals who were notified that their data was compromised may submit claims for reimbursement of documented out-of-pocket losses. Claims may be submitted for ordinary losses up to a maximum of $750 per class member, which can include communication costs, credit monitoring costs, attorneys' fees, accountants' fees, and miscellaneous expenses. Claims may also be submitted for extraordinary losses, such as losses due to identity theft and fraud, up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Class members may also claim up to five hours of lost time dealing with the consequences of the data breach at $20 per hour. Class members have been offered two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Class members who do not wish to submit a claim or receive credit monitoring services may choose to receive a cash payment of $50. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for August 27, 2025. The deadline for exclusion from the settlement, objection to the settlement, and submitting claims is July 3, 2025. AllCare Plus Pharmacy said it has made security changes since the incident and will continue to review and update those security measures. [GN] AMERICAN BANKERS: Bid Limiting Scope of Class Discovery Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brendan Dahl, v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order denying the Motion for Protective Order Limiting the Scope of Class Discovery filed by ABIC. ABIC seeks a territorial limit on discovery to only the state of residence of the named class representatives, Arizona, or in the alternative a time limit on the discovery to the statutory or contractual limitations periods of the nine "States at issue." The Court said, "ABIC's motion does not provide the Court with the language of any policy provision upon which its motion relies. ABIC has not stated whether it wrote polices in some or all the states at issue, the dates or time frames of relevant policies, or whether it withheld future repair labor from putative class members making ACV claims during any of the relevant time frames. As of the date the motion was briefed, no discovery had been conducted. There is no evidence offered that the timing of the filing of the lawsuit is outside the suit limitation of any putative plaintiff's policy." The Court finds that it is premature to issue a blanket protective order based on the record before it. The issues addressed in this portion of ABIC's motion may be raised when the parties litigate the motion for class certification. American Bankers provides specialty credit-related insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWFDfj at no extra charge.[CC] ANGEION GROUP: Baker Sues Over Deceptive Compensation Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEION GROUP LLC; EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.; and JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02079-KBH (E.D. Pa., April 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for engaging in a manipulative and deceptive scheme to obtain millions of dollars in undisclosed compensation for serving as the court-approved settlement administrators in hundreds, if not thousands, of mass tort and class action lawsuits across the country. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to class counsel, the courts, and the class members in the settlements they administer, the Defendants reap huge profits from so-called "revenue sharing" payments for using digital payment cards and gift cards, which they distribute to class members. In reality, these revenue sharing payments are nothing more than kickbacks. Angeion Group LLC is an independent, internationally recognized, settlement administration company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com APOLLO ENERGY: Parties Must Amend Pleadings by July 3 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER LEE FOUSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. APOLLO ENERGY COMPANY INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:24-cv-01555-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Brown entered a case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings or add new parties by July 3, 2025. 2. The parties shall complete fact discovery related to class certification by Sept. 15, 2025. 3. Class discovery is limited to that information necessary to decide class certification. The parties may take discovery to corroborate their respective positions as to the elements of class certification under Rule 23, including issues related to ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, manageability and superiority. 4. The Plaintiff's Expert Report(s) related to class certification are due on or before Sept. 30, 2025. The Defendants' Expert Report(s) related to class certification are due on or before Oct. 30, 2025. Expert Depositions related to class certification shall be completed on or before Nov. 14, 2025. 5. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by July 28, 2025. Discovery is NOT stayed pending ADR. 6. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification, memorandum in support and all supporting evidence on or before Dec. 1, 2025. A response/briefing order will follow after the Motion for Class Certification is filed. 7. The Court will hold a mid-discovery video status conference on Aug. 19, 2025, at 12:00 PM. Apollo specializes in solar energy solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sT7k0s at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Apicella Sues Over Mislabeled AirPods ------------------------------------------------ ARTHUR APICELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02261 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2025) is class action is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased AirPods Max headphones in the State of New York that were designed, promoted, distributed, warranted, and sold by Apple. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as part of the Defendant's suite of premium, high-performance products and services, Apple touts that the AirPods Max "join the existing AirPods family in delivering unparalleled wireless audio, whether a customer is listening to music, making phone calls, enjoying TV shows and movies, playing games, or interacting with Siri." Specifically, Apple boasts that the AirPods Max are "innovative wireless headphones that bring the magic of AirPods to an over-ear design with high-fidelity sound" to deliver a "breakthrough listening experience." However, a latent and material defect causes condensation to accumulate inside the ear cups of the AirPods Max, often after only an hour or several hours of normal use (the "Defect"). In addition to affecting the overall experience and value of the AirPods Max, the Defect also causes some consumers to experience performance problems such as degraded or no sound in one or both of the ear cups, failure to detect the user's ears and of the active noise cancellation ("ANC") function, and/or battery charging issues, says the suit. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. Apple Inc.'s customers are primarily in consumer, small & mid-sized business, education, enterprise and government markets worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net scarson@bm.net apark@bm.net APPLOVIN CORP: Wayne County Sues Over Drop of Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------- WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLOVIN CORPORATION, ADAM FOROUGHI, HERALD CHEN, and MATTHEW STUMPF, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-03438 (N.D. Fla., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding AppLovin's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade AppLovin securities at artificially inflated prices between May 10, 2023 and March 26, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants misled investors by: (1) failing to disclose that AppLovin's revenue and profit growth were unsustainable because of the company's systematic exploitation of fraudulent advertising practices, including click spoofing and the use of a backdoor installation scheme to force unwanted apps on customers; (2) disclosing risks related to AppLovin's breach of terms of service with third-party platforms that were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; (3) falsely attributing AppLovin's growth in revenue to the company's enhanced AXON 2.0 digital ad platform and the use of "cutting-edge AI technologies" to more efficiently match advertisements to mobile games; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, making public statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects that were materially false and misleading. When the truth emerged, AppLovin's stock price fell by 12.2 percent, dropping from $377.06 to $331.00 per share on February 26, 2025. It further plummeted 20.1 percent, dropping from $327.62 to $261.70 per share on March 27, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. AppLovin Corporation is a technology company based in Palo Alto, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-047 Email: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Parties Seek Stay of Discovery ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the current case schedule and staying discovery pending resolution of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint, scheduled for hearing on June 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on March 6, 2025. The Defendant filed its motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 7, 2025. Ashlynn specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJrqUr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Monique Olivier, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. OLIVIER & SCHREIBER PC 475 14th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: monique@os-legal.com christian@os-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Marisol C. Mork, Esq. Chassica Soo, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 3lst Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 624-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-4581 E-mail: Marisol.mork@squirepb.com Chassica.soo@squirepb.com AUSTRALIA: Court Criticizes "Excessive Fees" in Stolen Wages Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for HR Leader, reports that a law firm was criticised for the extensive fees it racked up in a class action that alleged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers in the Northern Territory were underpaid, or not at all, over four decades in the early to mid-1900s. The Federal Court approved a $180 million settlement between the Commonwealth and a class action that alleged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people working in the Northern Territory between June 1933 and November 1971 were not paid appropriately, or at all. At the end of the registration process, due to end on 31 August this year, each living group member would have received a settlement sum of at least $10,000. The spouses of deceased group members will receive this share, or it could be split between descendants. About $30 million of the settlement will be paid to the funder, LLS Fund Services, for commission and insurance costs. The Commonwealth also agreed to pay a further $15 million for Shine Lawyers' legal costs, and another $7 million to cover the expenses for the administrator and the report by a costs assessor. However, Chief Justice Debra Mortimer said not every part of the amounts claimed by the lawyers was "fair and reasonable". This included a request by Shine for an additional $8 million for an outreach program and registration process that Chief Justice Mortimer said should instead be completed by local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to keep costs down. Chief Justice Mortimer also found the rates charged by Shine for work completed by law clerks was "excessive", particularly because group member communications, opt-outs, and registration tasks could have been completed by non-legal staff. "The higher fees charged for these tasks illustrate the failures and flaws in the method and approach adopted by Shine in the past," Chief Justice Mortimer said in her written reasons. The court acknowledged Shine seemed to have made a concession that the sum was high when it said it would charge the law clerks the lower rate of $200 per hour for future work on outreach and registration. "That is, I find, a proper but belated recognition that it had overcharged for some of the work the law clerks had done, and in any event had been charging at rates that were very much at the upper limit of what might be justifiable," Chief Justice Mortimer said. The court said not only would this lower rate be applied to future legal costs, but it should also be applied to the administrative tasks already completed by clerks. This would see the firm receive a deduction from the settlement fund based on the $200 per hour rate. In addition to the large volume of staff members working on this matter, Chief Justice Mortimer also pointed out that it was run out of its Brisbane offices, meaning the firm would rack up "considerable travel costs and time costs for the staff involved". "Overall, I consider Shine has not attempted to ensure that the method it adopted through the staff it employed on the matter, and how it conducted the proceedings, was prudent and cost-effective," she said. Chief Justice Mortimer said the court was not alone in its criticisms of Shine's business model, referring to responses from the Northern Land Council (NLC) on whether local organisations would be better placed to conduct parts of the registration processes. When asked if they would participate in this process, the NLC and the Central Land Council (CLC) said they were concerned with "reputational risks in working with Shine on this proceeding", given the criticism that has been levelled against the firm. "When the evidence adduced after the last-minute inquiries is taken into account, the overall approach of Shine to deploying very large numbers of people, using law clerks liberally for matters that could have been done by staff who were not legally trained, and accumulating high amounts of legal costs is not one which is easily described as fair and reasonable in relation to the interests of group members," Chief Justice Mortimer said. Chief Justice Mortimer said the pursuit of Shine's business model had overshadowed the "good intentions" of the proceedings. She added it was likely a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Northern Territory communities would look at the sums paid to the lawyers, funders, and administrators and be frustrated and "likely mystified" about how city-based and non-Indigenous participants "come out with so much money". "That may well be compounded because of the way the outreach program has been conducted, with groups of city-based lawyers visiting towns and communities, trying to engage with people, perhaps on the first time they have ever met them, on very distressing matters, and leaving again," the CJ said. Shine Lawyers and the funder submitted they and the administrators should be paid before the registered group members because the court will "know how much is available to pay group members". Chief Justice Mortimer did not agree. While some of the money should be paid upfront, the solicitors and funder should wait until after the registration process ends, when the court will know "how many people have registered". The court has directed Shine to "come back" after the outreach program has concluded in late August 2025, when the registration process has finished. Once it does, the court will assess "how much it is reasonable for it to receive as extra legal costs". "The court has asked the lawyers to make sure, as far as they can, that they are using local resources and organisations already working in the community because the court has found this is likely to cost less money and will also be better for group members as they will be able to talk with people and organisations they are used to. "If the legal costs are less, there will be more money to distribute to eligible registered group members," Chief Justice Mortimer said. Moving forward, the court said it would examine "how faithfully and fully" Shine has adhered to the undertaking it has given to use more logistically and culturally appropriate and cost-effective methods for the outreach program. Given they did not have this information until the second settlement hearing, Chief Justice Mortimer said she was not prepared to find against the firm that it "deliberately ignored this option so as to increase their own profits by way of legal costs". It was also to the firm's credit that it adduced much of the evidence on culturally appropriate and cost-effective methods themselves. [GN] AVIS BUDGET: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("Avis Budget" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CAR). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Avis Budget crafted and implemented a plan to significantly accelerate its fleet rotation in the fourth quarter of 2024; (ii) the foregoing acceleration shortened the useful life of the majority of the Company's vehicles in the Americas segment, thereby reducing their recoverable value; (iii) as a result, Avis Budget would be forced to recognize billions of dollars in impairment charges and incur substantial losses; (iv) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a significant negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (v) accordingly, Avis Budget's financial and/or business prospects were overstated. If you bought shares of Avis Budget between February 16, 2024 and February 10, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/avis-budget/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 24, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] BESTWAY SANDWICHFS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Zenaida Garcia, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated and the State of California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. BESTWAY SANDWICHFS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES I through 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25STCV12490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025), is brought under the Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") Notice of claims arising under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and are seeking wages, expense reimbursements, penalties, injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff are also routinely not compensated for time and a half for work in a single shift that exceeds 8 hours or for labor hours within a week that exceeds 40 hours. The Plaintiff were consistently required to remain at work approximately ten to fifteen minutes after their shift concluded; however, they did not receive compensation for these additional work duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and was a general laborer in the production/assembly line. Bestway is a California corporation authorized to and conducting business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Joshua Ritz, Esq. T. JOSHUA RITZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. 13400 Riverside Dr. Ste 101 Sherman Oaks CA 91423 Phone: 818.788.1123 Fax: 818.788.1126 Web: www.rrhllp.com BILL NELSON: Thomas Bid to Certify Class Stayed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS v. BILL NELSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-01634 (D.D.C., Filed June 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss entered an order staying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and Plaintiffs' motion to amend pending the Court's resolution of the motions to dismiss. The nature of suit states job discrimination (employment).[CC] BRIAN FISCHER: Court Junks Parties' Summary Judgment Bids --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL SHARIF, DIVINE ALLAH, and JAMES WEST, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. BRIAN S. FISCHER, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-06504-CJS-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Charles Siragusa entered an order denying the parties' competing motions for partial summary judgment. The Court finds that Defendants have not met their initial burden on summary judgment to show their entitlement to judgement as a matter of law on four of the six grounds referenced in their motion. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' motion must be denied since there is a triable issue of fact concerning the standard of care. Moreover, despite Young having reportedly reviewed the Plaintiffs' medical records, neither his expert report nor his supporting declaration opines that the Plaintiffs were given and/or injured by improperly-sized catheters, or that the Plaintiffs' urinary tract infections resulted from re-using single-use catheters. The Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that they are entitled to partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs are wheelchair-bound current or former inmates of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") who must self-catheterize themselves multiple times per day in order to urinate. The Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, maintaining that they experienced violation of their federal civil rights, and discrimination on the basis of their disabilities, while housed at Five Points Correctional Facility, Franklin Correctional Facility, Wyoming Correctional Facility, Orleans Correctional Facility, Attica Correctional Facility, Upstate Correctional Facility, and Green Haven Correctional Facility. Now before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 241 & 242). For the reasons discussed below, both motions are denied. On Oct. 4, 2019, the Court granted the Motion for Class Certification and certified the following class: "Plaintiffs and all prisoners in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional and Community Supervision who suffer from a mobility disability limiting one or more of the prisoner’s major life activities and that requires the use of a wheelchair." The Defendants include GLENN S. GOORD, CHARLES M. DEVANE, LESTER N. WRIGHT, M.P.H., STEPHEN BERNARDI, ROBERT RAYMOND, JOHN H. NUTTALL, THOMAS G. EAGEN, THOMAS M. POOLE, LAWRENCE WEINGARTNER, SHERYL ZENZEN, DANIEL WEINSTOCK, J. PETER GREGOIRE, M.D., MENALLY, NAPOLI, RITCHIECARTER, LAWRENCE SEARS, JOHN R. DEMARS, PIPPEN, R.N., GLEN CHAMPAGNE, M.D., LORI MANTORY, MICHAEL GIAMBRUNO, GERALD ELMORE, HABIB SHIEKY, M.D., MOHRNING, DAVE UNGER, JIM LINDSAY, SHERRY MONTANARI, ROBINSON, R.N., JAMES CONWAY, SANDRA DOLCE, RICHARD APPS, ROBERT ERCOLE, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, DELORES THORNTON, FREDERICK BERNSTEIN, TOTTEN, KAISER, ROBERT K. WOODS, MARIA B. TIRONE, EVELYN WEISSMAN and the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O1kYuL at no extra charge.[CC] BYTEDANCE INC: J.O. Class Suit Transferred from C.D. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as J.O., a minor child, by and through Danaa Carrillo, her mother, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.;TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01320 (Filed Feb. 7, 2025) has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division-Los Angeles) on April 16, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03333-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H Wu. The Plaintiff brings this case to address Defendants’ unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging Plaintiff and children under the age of 13 to create user accounts on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting Personally Identifiable Information. The Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and other intrusive data points without the children's parents' knowledge or consent. Defendants utilize this unlawfully collected PII to provide personally curated content to keep children engaged with TikTok for their own profit, asserts the suit. The Defendants own and control htps://www.tiktok.com and the associated TikTok App, which utilizes a For You Page that operates by collecting PII and other sensitive data points about users to appeal to each specific user and include videos and advertisements curated towards that individual.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com CAFE CORAZON: Illegally Keeps Employees' Tips, Pountney Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK POUNTNEY, ROBERT BENTLEY, and JAIME TRUDEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAFE CORAZON INC., GW MIRELES INC., CAFE CORAZON BROWN DEER INC., CAFE CORAZON MEQUON INC., GEORGE MIRELES, and WENDY MIRELES, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00560 (E.D. Wis., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for operating a mandatory tip pool and allowing managers and supervisors to keep a portion of front-of-house employees' tips in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(B). The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as front-of-house employees. Cafe Corazon Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GW Mireles Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Cafe Corazon Brown Deer Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Cafe Corazon Mequon Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Connor J. Clegg, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 5150 North Port Washington Road Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Email: cclegg@hq-law.com ljohnson@hq-law.com CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Omega Campbell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGE, aka COVERED CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:25-at-00546 (E.D. Cal., April 29, 2025), is brought against Defendant for disclosing confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta"), via a tracking pixel ("Meta Pixel"), and to LinkedIn and various other third parties through other tracking pixels, in violation of various common and statutory data privacy laws. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant shared Website visitors' personal information with Meta using a "Meta Pixel" and other third parties including LinkedIn using other tracking pixels. The pixels are snippets of programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information to these third parties. The Meta Pixel sends information to Meta in a data packet containing PII, which Meta then stores on its own servers. The information that Defendant shared with Meta includes the consumer's unique Facebook ID ("FID") and the pages that the person visited, among other information. A consumer's FID is linked to their Facebook profile, which generally contains a wide range of demographic and other information about the consumer. The Defendant disclosed the consumer's FID and page visits to Meta together in a single transmission. Because the FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook account, Meta, as well as any other person, can use the FID to quickly and easily locate, access, and view that person's corresponding Facebook profile. In simplest terms, the Meta Pixel allows Meta to know what health information one of its members viewed on Defendant's website. The Private Information that Defendant discloses through the Meta Pixel and other tracking pixels is valuable to internet marketing companies such as Meta, as they receive, view, analyze, and aggregate the information to build consumer profiles to assist advertisers in targeting desired demographics. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members viewed pages on Defendant's Website. The Defendant maintains the website: https://www.coveredca.com/ which allows consumers to find information about various health plans and to apply for such plans..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 866-219-3343 Fax: 866-219-8344 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Jones Sues Over Violation of Privacy Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Jones, Arturo Garcia, and Ronald Weis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-03743 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2025), is brought to remedy harms and bring causes of action for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, intrusion upon seclusion; breach of confidence. On April 9, 2025, Defendant Blue Shield acknowledged that it has disclosed its insureds' ("Members") protected health information ("PHI") and confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively referred to as "Protected Information") to unauthorized third parties through its Blue Shield websites and Blue Shield mobile web application (the "Web Properties"). The third parties include Google LLC ("Google"). Defendant Blue Shield owned and operated those websites and apps. The Plaintiffs and other Class Members who used Blue Shield's Web Properties reasonably believed they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare and insurance providers. The Tracking Technologies embedded in Blue Shield's Web Properties were not disclosed to Plaintiffs. Those Tracking Technologies include source code that tracked, recorded, and disseminated Plaintiffs' and Class Members' online activity and communications, including their Protected Information, to Google and other third parties. Because those Tracking Technologies were not disclosed and not visible to the average internet user, there is no way a reasonable person could have understood or consented to this tracking. By installing and using Tracking Technologies on its Web Properties, Blue Shield caused Members' confidential communications to be intercepted, accessed, viewed, and captured by third parties in real time, as they were communicated by patients, based on Blue Shield's chosen configuration. As a result of Blue Shield's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been injured, including by invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of their Protected Information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud due to the exposure of their Protected Information. Plaintiffs and Class Members must also devote substantial time, money, and energy to monitor and investigate fraudulent activity resulting from the exposure of their Protected Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs provided their information to the Defendant. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 445-4003 Fax: (415) 445-4020 Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Must File Class Cert Bid by July 30 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A, Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-MMA-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Torres entered an order granting oral motion and issuing amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by July 30, 2025. 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by Sept. 2, 2025. 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference ("MSC") shall be conducted by Zoom video conferencing on Sept. 11, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. 4. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by Oct. 2, 2025. The parties shall designate rebuttal experts in writing by Oct. 16, 2025. 5. By Nov. 17, 2025, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). 6. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by Dec. 1, 2025. 7. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Jan. 5, 2026. 8. All dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment and motions addressing Daubert issues, must be filed by Feb. 5, 2026. Capital One is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HkFV1h at no extra charge.[CC] CARELON BEHAVIORAL: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Directory -------------------------------------------------------------- Pollock Cohen LLP and Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP have filed a new class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 1 million patients against Carelon Behavioral Health. Carelon provides the mental health benefits to state and municipal employees who choose the Empire Plan under the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP). The lawsuit alleges the health insurance company scammed vulnerable customers by publishing an inaccurate directory of doctors who supposedly accepted the Empire Plan insurance but, in fact, did not. Carelon's misleading directory -- known as a "ghost network" -- has caused significant harm to thousands of patients. It is not only financial harm -- because patients needing treatment must go to out-of-network providers, thereby incurring substantial expense -- but medical complications and enormous emotional distress. The grossly inaccurate directory delays many patients' ability to find in-network care. Thousands of others simply cannot afford to pay for an out-of-network provider, and abandon their search for care -- complicating their mental health condition significantly. The Empire Plan is one of multiple options available to New York State employees when selecting their health insurance plan. It competes against the other plans by advertising the benefits of its plan. Our lawsuit contends that Carelon is knowingly engaging in a deceptive advertising campaign intended to lure people into choosing the Empire Plan by drastically overstating the adequacy of its provider network. The lawsuit focuses on access to mental health care for both adults and children. In the complaint, three plaintiffs share their anguish and frustration dealing with Carelon's ghost network and detail their stories about calling countless doctors listed in Carelon's directory -- thinking that did not actually accept the Empire Plan. After hearing these stories, attorneys for the plaintiffs conducted extensive "secret shopper" studies to replicate each of the plaintiff's experiences and called 300 doctors listed in the Carelon directory. Only 17% of doctors (51 out of the 300 called) actually accepted the insurance and would see new patients. The remaining doctors either did not accept the insurance, were unreachable, did not accept new patients, or did not provide the type of service listed in the directory. "Ghost networks are a serious, serious problem: they are not just a massive inconvenience, but a real danger to people who need medical care and can't get it," said Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen, one of the lead attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "For tens of thousands of patients, this grossly inaccurate directory means delays in care. And if they can afford to go to out-of-network providers, those costs can add up to thousands of dollars. It is an abomination that they didn't get the coverage they were paying for; and more importantly, didn't receive the mental health care they or their loved one needed." "Carelon's inaccurate provider directory is hurting vulnerable people," said Jacob Gardener, a partner at Walden Macht Haran & Williams and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "By falsely inflating its network of available providers, Carelon is violating its statutory, contractual, and common law duties, not to mention its moral obligations. Individuals relied on Carelon's misrepresentations and paid a heavy financial, psychological, and emotional price for doing so." The complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York. Click here for the complaint. This is the second ghost network lawsuit the firms have filed. In 2024, the firms filed against Anthem HealthChoice Assurance of New York, also known as Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Both Anthem and Carelon are subsidiaries of the same parent company: Elevance Health of Indiana. About Pollock Cohen LLP Pollock Cohen LLP is an impact-driven litigation firm that delivers unusually effective plaintiff-side legal representation. We are known for our ability to solve client problems -- with strategy, creativity, and thought -- both inside the courtroom and outside the four corners of a legalistic approach. We thrive on representing plaintiffs in cases that are impactful and meaningful, and where we can make a difference. For more information, visit http://www.pollockcohen.com. About Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP is a premier litigation boutique that handles high-stakes civil and criminal cases. Headquartered in New York, they are known for their work on high-profile complex commercial disputes, appeals, white-collar defense and investigations, monitorships, and corporate compliance matters. Walden Macht Haran & Williams strives to do good. For more information, visit https://wmhwlaw.com. [GN] CARL ZEISS: Faces Kogent Class Actionn Suit Over Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ KOGENT HOLDCO, LLC AND KATALYST HOLDCO, LLC v. CARL ZEISS MEDITEC, INC. AND CARL ZEISS MEDITEC AG, Case No. N25C-04-107 MAA CCLD (Del. Super., April 16, 2025) is a class action involving the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct in connection with negotiating and performing the supposed merger and ultimate acquisition of two former Missouri companies, Katalyst Surgical and Kogent Surgical. The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action against Zeiss for damages sustained from Defendants' breach of the Kogent "Agreement and Plan of Merger," breach of the Katalyst "Agreement and Plan of Merger," fraud, fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with business expectancy. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, inactions, and false representations, the Plaintiffs have suffered monetary damages in an amount to be proven at trial but including at least, says the suit. CARL ZEISS MEDITEC, INC. is a medical technology manufacturer in Dublin, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph S. Naylor, Esq. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-3935 E-mail: jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com - and - Rudolph Telscher, Esq. Kara Fussner, Esq. Dustin Taylor, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 8001 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 E-mail: Rudy.Telscher@huschblackwell.com Kara.Fussner@huschblackwell.com Dustin.Taylor@huschblackwell.com CARLTON BLAIR: Discovery Assigned to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED CARGO MANAGEMENT, INC., v. CARLTON III BLAIR, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03588-AH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order setting scheduling conference: All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge Anne Hwang. All documents relating to discovery matters must include the words "DISCOVERY MATTER" in the caption to ensure proper routing. Counsel must follow the Magistrate Judge’s procedures for scheduling matters for a hearing. Limited District Court Review of Discovery Matters. The decision of the Magistrate Judge shall be final, subject to limited review requiring a showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court hears civil motions on Wednesdays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLdzhk at no extra charge.[CC] CDHA MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christina Figueroa, as parent and natural guardian for A.A., A.F., and A.A., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC and SPARK DSO, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Case No. 250306230 was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02186. The Plaintiff alleges that she, along with similarly situated individuals, experienced damages as a result of a third-party security incident, to wit, a business email compromise impacting email accounts belonging to Defendants. The Plaintiff has raised several causes of action including Negligence and Negligence Per Se, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Implied Contract, and Unjust Enrichment. Defendant denies the allegations underlying each of Plaintiff's claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jill H. Fertel, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER P.C. 450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: 610-567-0715 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com CERNER CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Divulging of Information -------------------------------------------------------- John Doe and John Doe II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-04087-WJE (W.D. Mo., April 29, 2025), is brought against Defendant Cerner for divulging their Health Information to Google via Google's marketing systems, known as Google Analytics, Google Ads, and Google Display Ads, when patients exchanged communications with their healthcare providers via Patient Portals provided by Cerner (the "Patient Portals"). As a Patient Portal provider, Cerner operates as a "business associate" under HIPAA, which requires Cerner to maintain patients' Health Information in a manner consistent with HIPAA regulations. In addition to HIPAA, Cerner is obligated to maintain the confidentiality of Health Information under state and federal law and Cerner's own promises to patients. Despite these obligations, and unbeknownst to patients, Cerner deployed various Google digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools on its Patient Portals. Via these tools, Cerner purposefully and intentionally disclosed patients' Health Information to third parties who exploited the information and used it for advertising. By using these tools, Cerner took patients' confidential communications and Health Information and automatically sent them to Google--a clear violation of patients' reasonable expectations of privacy, their rights as patients, and their rights under federal and state law. Cerner's conduct violates reasonable expectations of patient privacy. As a Patient Portal provider, Cerner promised patients that it was "committed to protecting patients' privacy and the security of the information patients entrust with us." Cerner did not provide patients with any warnings that using its Patient Portals would result in Cerner depositing Google cookies on patients' personal computing devices or divulging their Health Information and the substance of their communications with healthcare providers to Google and its advertising systems, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been a registered user of the HEALTHConnect Patient Portal. Cerner is one of the largest providers of health information technology services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason "Jay" Barnes, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 231 S. Bemiston Avenue, #525 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Phone: (212) 784-6400 Email: Jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUDSON GILL, CLAIR AWAD, and NICHOLAS ULRICH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01672-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order re joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Feb. 5, 2026 Motions in Limine: Last Date to File Motion for Class Oct. 13, 2025 Certification: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Apr. 3, 2025 Pleadings /Add Parties: Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 6, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Oct. 13, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Oct. 20, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 15, 2025 Chipotle is an American multinational chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos, and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=If65Yu at no extra charge.[CC] COLOR STREET: Fields Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristy Fields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COLOR STREET LLC; INCOCO PRODUCTS LLC; INCOCO CAPITAL LLC; FA PARK; BRIAN J. LEE; BRICK BERGESON; MATT WARNER; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07668 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03864. The Complaint alleges 9 causes of action against Defendants in connection with the core allegation (which Defendants deny) that, under California law, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep payroll records; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq. Kathryn B. Fox, Esq. Tricia A. Pham, Esq. BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Phone: (213) 891-0700 Fax: (213) 896-0400 Eamil: LSteinberg@buchalter.com kfox@buchalter.com tpham@buchalter.com COMMERCIAL VAN INTERIORS: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GMRI, INC., et al. The case is styled as Christopher H. Herrera Gutierrez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. COMMERCIAL VAN INTERIORS LLC AKA COMMERCIAL VAN INTERIORS-LA, Case No. 25STCV12741 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Commercial Van Interiors LLC also known as Commercial Van Interiors is widely recognized as the industry's leading upfitter of working vans and trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com COMMUNITY ELDERCARE: Ammons Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Ammons, individually and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES, LLC. d/b/a Lauderdale Community Living Center, Case No. 2:25-cv-02470 (W.D. Tenn., April 29, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 within weekly pay periods at one and one-half times their regular hourly pay rates. The Defendant has had a timekeeping system to record the hours worked by Plaintiff and those similarly situated. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked 40 hours or more within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant. The Defendant is a nursing home facility located in Ripley, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Breaks --------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Crooks Ramos, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees v. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12484 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025), is brought against the Defendants failure to provide rest breaks and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was denied compliant rest breaks during the course of his duties, as required by California Labor Code. The Defendants failed to inform the Plaintiff of his right to two 10-minute rest breaks during the work day. As the result of this failure, RAMOS did not receive a 10-minute rest break, which complied with California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is thereby entitled to premium wages, as set forth under Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Order #16, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee for the Defendant from November 2019 until April 2024. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT, INC. is and was a California corporation, organized and existing in the State of California, doing business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. DesJardins, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC. 420 La Crescenta Drive, #208 Brea, CA 92823 Phone: (714) 265-2100 Fax: (714)494-8215 Email: md@desjardinslaw.com CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT: Tinoco Sues Over Failure to Provide Breaks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Arriola Tinoco, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees v. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12493 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025), is brought against the Defendants failure to provide rest breaks and unfair business practices, discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to reimburse. During the entire period of his employment, the Plaintiff was denied compliant meal and rest breaks during the course of his duties, as required by California Labor Code. The Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff of his right to two 10-minute rest breaks during the work day. The Plaintiff's meal breaks were interrupted on a regular basis, approximately 3 days per week. As the result of this failure, TINOCO did not receive a 10-minute rest break or regular meal breaks, which complied with California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was 64 years of age (DOB: 07/09/1961), and replaced by younger, less experienced employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee for the Defendant from 1996 until October 2024. CONCEPTUAL MANAGEMENT, INC. is and was a California corporation, organized and existing in the State of California, doing business in the County of Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. DesJardins, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL DESJARDINS, INC. 420 La Crescenta Drive, #208 Brea, CA 92823 Phone: (714) 265-2100 Fax: (714)494-8215 Email: md@desjardinslaw.com CONVERSE INC: Allen Sues Over Abusive Telephone Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Allen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03826 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's abusive telephone marketing practices. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com COX AUTOMOTIVE: June 16 Fact Discovery Vacated in Touch Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Touch v. Cox Automotive Corp. Services LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01945 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting the parties' Stipulation to Continue Case Deadlines as follows: -- The deadline for the parties to file their Joint Notice of Trial Readiness is vacated. -- The deadline of June 16, 2025, to complete fact discovery is vacated. -- The parties shall file a Stipulation and Proposed Order with proposed dates moving forward after the Court issues a ruling on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Discrimination. Cox Automotive is an automotive services and technology provider with solutions for car shoppers, automakers, dealers, retailers, and lenders.[CC] CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Gonzalez FDCA Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is captioned as Fern Gonzalez individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03358-SVW-ADS (C.D. Ca., April 16, 2025), The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Credit Control provides customized, performance-driven receivables management services founded in 1989.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com DAILYLOOK LLC: Guevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAILYLOOK, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Guevara, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DAILYLOOK LLC, MEETING ALL NEEDS EMPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 25STCV12745 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Dailylook -- http://www.dailylook.com/-- is an online personal styling service that sends a box of hand-picked fashion items right to the door every month.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com DAMERON HOSPITAL: Lalonde Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dameron Hospital Association, et al. The case is styled as Jacob Lalonde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dameron Hospital Association d/b/a Dameron Hospital, Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2025-0005287 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort." Dameron Hospital Association doing business as Dameron Hospital -- https://www.dameronhospital.org/ -- is a fully accredited, non-profit, 202-bed community hospital providing acute and tertiary level care to San Joaquin County residents.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Does 1-9 v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order granting motion for extension of time to move for class certification. The Court will hold in abeyance the requirement to file a motion for class certification under Local Civil Rule 23.1(b) until the Court has ruled on Defendants' dispositive motion and any scheduling order is entered. The nature of suit states civil rights. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government that oversees the domestic enforcement of federal laws and the administration of justice.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., Petitioners–Plaintiffs, and J.G.G., et al., Plaintiffs, DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (DDC.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class action and designating undersigned counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiffs and Petitioners move this Court to amend the provisionally certified class of: "All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua' and its implementation." To the following class definition: "All noncitizens who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation." The Petitioners also move the Court to certify the following subclasses: SUBCLASS 1 ("CECOT Subclass"): "All noncitizens in custody at the Terrorism Confinement Center ("CECOT") in El Salvador who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation." SUBCLASS 2 ("Criminal Custody Subclass"): "All noncitizens in criminal custody who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation." The Plaintiffs move for an order appointing them as representatives of the amended class. The Petitioners further move for an order appointing them as representatives of the amended class and new subclasses defined above. The Plaintiffs and Petitioners move to appoint undersigned counsel as counsel for the amended class and new subclasses. The Plaintiffs and Petitioners further move for an order requiring the government to identify members of the class and subclasses, and provide notice when a new class or subclass member is designated. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELq9Rh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Evelyn Danforth-Scott, Esq. Cecillia D. Wang, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org mngo@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org edanforth-scott@aclu.org cwang@aclu.org - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722 Washington, D.C. 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org - and - Somil B. Trivedi, Esq. Bradley Girard, Esq. Michael Waldman, Esq. Sarah Rich, Esq. Skye Perryman, Esq. Audrey Wiggins, Esq. Christine L. Coogle, Esq. Pooja Boisture, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Facsimile: (202) 796-4426 E-mail: strivedi@democracyforward.org bgirard@democracyforward.org mwaldman@democracyforward.org srich@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org awiggins@democracyforward.org ccoogle@democracyforward.org pboisture@democracyforward.org DUDE PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over False "Made in USA" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Benjamin Karter and Diego Ornelas filed a class action lawsuit against Dude Products Inc. Why: Karter and Ornelas claim Dude Products falsely advertised that its Dude Wipes are made in the United States. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Dude Products falsely advertised its Dude Wipes flushable wet wipes as made in the United States. Plaintiffs Benjamin Karter and Diego Ornelas claim Dude Wipes, despite being advertised as being of United States origin, contain foreign ingredients and components, including tea tree oil and shea butter, among other things. Karter and Ornelas argue Dude Wipes are labeled with unqualified statements like "Assembled in USA" and featured an American flag, misleading consumers into believing the products were entirely made in the United States. "This unqualified, express U.S. origin representation was printed on all or nearly all products manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendant," the Dude Wipes class action says. Karter and Ornelas want to represent a class of all California consumers who purchased Dude Wipes labeled as being of U.S. origin within the past four years. Dude Wipes made with foreign ingredients, class action claims Karter and Ornelas claim consumers were misled into paying a premium for Dude Wipes under the belief they were supporting American jobs and labor conditions. The class action lawsuit further argues the plaintiffs would not have purchased the products had they known the truth about their origin. "Federal rules and California laws are designed to protect consumers from such false representations and predatory conduct," the Dude Wipes class action says. Karter and Ornelas claim Dude Products is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and in violation of California consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, general, compensatory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Goya Foods last month over claims the company misrepresented that some of its products were made in the United States. The plaintiffs are represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Jonathan Gil of Kazerouni Law Group APC. The Dude Wipes class action lawsuit is Karter, et al. v. Dude Products Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00663, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] ENHANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ELIAKIM BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENHANCE HEALTH LLC; ENHANCE ACA PLUS LLC; NET HEALTH AFFILIATES, INC.; MATTHEW HERMAN; and BRUCE GOLDBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21887-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 24, 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 Brown was employed by the Defendants as a health insurance agent. Enhance Health LLC is a senior-focused digital insurance agency, and represents various insurance carriers, dental plans, vision plans, Hospital Gap coverage plans and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Lerner, Esq. KIM VAUGHAN LERNER LLP 312 SE 17th Street, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 527-1115 Facsimile: (954) 527-1116 Email: blerner@kvllaw.comand - and - Giselle Gutierrez, Esq. EXHIBIT G LAW FIRM 1825 Ponce De Leon Boulevard #302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 340-7066 Email: Giselle@ExG-Law.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Theodore Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Wilson Theodore, Lashanda Theodore, Steven Bilodeau, Jr., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00045-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va., April 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com ERS HOUSING: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Violations ------------------------------------------------------- NIMB reports that the lawsuit alleges breaches of federal rules affecting hundreds of consumers. Luis A. Vega-Collazo claims ERS Housing Administration Services used misleading letters and improper actions. Puerto Rico resident Luis A. Vega-Collazo has filed a federal class action lawsuit seeking to certify a group of consumers allegedly harmed by the debt collection practices of ERS Housing Administration Services Inc. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, accuses the defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through misleading collection letters and improper legal actions. Vega claims that ERS wrongfully pursued a debt he does not owe and is seeking to represent hundreds of other consumers who may have received similar allegedly deceptive communications. "This case arises from the defendants' improper and deceptive debt collection practices," the complaint states, alleging that the defendants used "false, misleading and unjustifiable claims" to pressure Vega into paying a nonexistent debt. At the center of the lawsuit is a request for the court to certify a class of individuals in Puerto Rico who received ERS' standardized collection letters. According to the filing, the letters lacked federally required disclosures under Regulation F, such as an itemization date and a clear breakdown of charges. Vega asserts that the omission of this information systematically misled consumers and caused financial and emotional harm. The lawsuit describes the collection letter sent to Vega as falsely demanding $8,591.60 in homeowner's association dues, despite legal documentation dating back to 2004 excluding his property from such obligations. By pursuing class certification, Vega seeks to hold ERS accountable on behalf of similarly affected consumers, arguing that individual cases would not be economically feasible. "Many consumers may not realize their rights were violated due to the misleading and ambiguous nature of defendant's communication," the complaint notes. The lawsuit seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation costs and an injunction to prevent ERS from continuing the alleged practices. Vega claims that he and other class members suffered economic losses, reputational damage, physical stress and emotional distress as a result of the defendants' actions. Vega's attorneys argue that class action treatment is the most efficient and appropriate method to resolve the case, given the standardized nature of ERS' alleged communications. They estimate that more than 1,000 individuals could be eligible to join the proposed class. If granted, the class certification could lead to broader scrutiny of debt collection practices, reinforcing federal consumer protection standards. [GN] EVENFLO CO: Class Settlement in Liability Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Evenflo Company, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Jasper entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of settlement class. -- The Court appoints Settlement Class Counsel Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Martha A. Geer of Geer Milberg Coleman Bryson Philips Grossman PLLC, and Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabrasser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, as Lead Class Counsel. -- The Court appoints Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator in the action. Evenflo manufactures and sells children's car seats. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D4urDn at no extra charge.[CC] FARM BUREAU: Judge Approves Class Settlement Over Tax Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Pilger, writing for Insurance Newsnet, reports that a Lancaster County judge has approved a class-action settlement in a lawsuit by a Lincoln woman who said her insurance company should have to cover sales tax on a vehicle that's been totaled. In February, the settlement administrator mailed 7,995 notices and 4,474 email notices to class members eligible for a portion of the $4.2 million settlement collectively. In 2023, Shelly Burklund sued Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company on behalf of herself and others like her who suffered damages due to Farm Bureau's refusal to pay ACV (Actual Cash Value) Sales Tax and Regulatory Fees for total-loss vehicles. In 2020, Burklund's 2011 Acura RDX sustained damage in a crash, prompting her to file a claim with her insurance company. Farm Bureau determined the cost to repair the damage exceeded the value of the vehicle and deemed it a total loss, making the company contractually obligated to pay the actual cash value of the totaled car. But Farm Bureau removed $951 in sales tax from the adjusted value of $13,118 when making the payment to Burklund. Her attorney said her insurance also should have paid for the sales tax and all regulatory fees imposed by the State of Nebraska, like registration, title and license plate fees, which all needed to be replaced. In September, Lancaster County District Judge Kevin McManaman certified Burklund's lawsuit as a class-action suit, allowing her to seek money for others in a similar position. And in December, McManaman gave preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, which would obligate Farm Bureau to create a settlement fund to pay class members up to $4.2 million collectively, and up to $1.26 million in attorneys' fees. The judge entered final approval of the settlement this month, allowing for Nebraska class members to be paid the state sales tax and local sales tax on the value of his or her total loss vehicle, as well as motor vehicle tax, fee, local wheel tax and registration and plate fees. A website provides class members additional information at nebraskatotaledcarlawsuit.com. [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Minnesota Insureds Suit for $1.95-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Farmers Insurance agreed to pay $1.95 million to resolve claims it violated Minnesota law by entering into undisclosed agreements with health care providers that limited the ability of insureds to use policy benefits at the health care provider of their choice. The Farmers Insurance class action settlement benefits individuals or entities who purchased or renewed an auto insurance policy between Jan. 17, 2013, and Sept. 13, 2023, within the state of Minnesota from Farmers Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., Truck Insurance Exchange or Mid-Century Insurance Co. that provided for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No-Fault Act. Farmers Insurance is an insurance company that offers a variety of policies, including auto insurance. The company is based in Los Angeles and operates in all 50 states. According to the class action lawsuit, Farmers Insurance violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act by entering into undisclosed agreements with certain healthcare providers that limited insureds from using policy benefits at a provider of their choice. Farmers Insurance has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.95 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Farmers Insurance class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Payments will vary depending on the amount each class member paid for insurance coverage during the class period. No payment estimates are available at this time. The settlement also provides injunctive relief. Farmers Insurance agreed to disclose to the Minnesota Department of Commerce that it has No-Bill Agreements with certain healthcare providers and to disclose any No-Bill Agreements in the future. The deadline for exclusion is June 20, 2025 and the deadline for objection is July 21, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Farmers Insurance Minnesota class action lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 19, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 20, 2025. Who's Eligible Minnesota residents who purchased or renewed an auto insurance policy from Farmers Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., Truck Insurance Exchange or Mid-Century Insurance Co. that provided medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No-Fault Act on or after Jan. 17, 2013, and before Sept. 13, 2023. Potential Award A pro rata cash payout. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/20/2025 Case Name Taqueria El Primo LLC, et al. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-03071-JRT-ECW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Final Hearing 08/19/2025 Settlement Website FarmersInsuranceMinnesotaClassAction.com Claims Administrator Farmers Insurance Minnesota No-Fault Class Action c/o Analytics Consulting LLC P.O. Box 2007 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007 info@FarmersInsuranceMinnesotaClassAction.com (877) 719-0555 Class Counsel David W. Asp Simeon A. Morbey Jennifer L.M. Jacobs Derek C. Waller LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Anne T. Regan Nathan D. Prosser HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC Paul J. Phelps SAWICKI & PHELPS P.A. Defense Counsel Marc A. Al Emily C. Atmore Brea L. Khwaja Timothy W. Snider Vanessa Soriano Power STOEL RIVES LLP [GN] FCA US: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Bid to Alter Class Definition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELLA MACK and JOHN LYND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02990-SJB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: (i) striking the Plaintiffs' "Motion to Alter or Amend the Class Definition Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), Certify the New York Class Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel," which the Plaintiffs served on FCA on Feb. 17, 2025; and (ii) sanctioning the Plaintiffs and their counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and the Court's inherent authority. Unless the Court orders otherwise, no appearance is necessary, and the Court will take this Motion under submission after briefing is completed. Pursuant to Part VI.C of Judge Bulsara's Individual Practices, the parties will confer and file a joint proposed briefing schedule for this Motion. The Court should strike the Certification Motion for two independent reasons. First, the Certification Motion is an untimely and procedurally improper request for this Court to reconsider previous orders denying Plaintiffs the same requested relief: certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) New York class. Second, the Certification Motion is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine because there are no extraordinary circumstances justifying a third request for the same twice-denied relief. The Court should sanction Plaintiffs and their counsel for filing the Certification Motion because there is no new law, no new facts, and no conceivable good-faith reason for Plaintiffs to file a third motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) New York class. Their first motion was denied, and their second motion was struck as an improper attempted do-over, asserts the suit. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uL0jpe at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian K. Edwards, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 840-6314 E-mail: fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com - and – Peter J. Fazio, Esq. AARONSON, RAPPAPORT, FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH 600 Third Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 593-6700 Facsimile: (212) 593-6970 E-mail: pjfazio@arfdlaw.com FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Exclude Expert Olsen's Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Sept. 25, 2025, will move the Court for an order excluding all opinions offered by the Plaintiff's expert Arthur Olsen, and certain opinions offered by the Plaintiff's expert Adam Cole, in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Federal requests that the Court exclude all opinions in the Expert Report of Arthur Olsen on the grounds that Olsen does not have any specialized knowledge that will be helpful to the Court and applies a damages model that does not match the Plaintiff's theories of liability, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). He seeks to certify a class of all "persons or entities in California that purchased or renewed a Masterpiece homeowners' insurance policy issued by the Defendant on or after Jan. 10, 2017, excluding insurance policies covering more than one risk unit." Federal Insurance offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and property insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AAkpAY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Zoheb P. Noorani, Esq. Andrew M. Levine, Esq. Jessica A. Snyder, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com znoorani@omm.com andrewlevine@omm.com jsnyder@omm.com FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seeks to Seal Portions of Expert Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing portions of the Expert Report of Rebecca Kirk Fair and the Expert Report of Dr. Anne Gron, attached as Exhibits 14 and 16, respectively, to the Declaration of Andrew M. Levine in Support of the Federal's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Federal's sealing request is based on this Motion; the Declaration of Andrew M. Levine; the Declaration of Thomas von Spreckelsen; the accompanying Stipulation in Support of Unopposed Administrative Motion to Seal; the accompanying Proposed Order; all cited authorities; and all pleadings and records on file in this action. Given the limited scope of the proposed redactions and the potential competitive harm that publicly disclosing the confidential information could cause Federal, there are no less restrictive alternatives to sealing. On March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed class certification motion. Federal Insurance offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and property insurance services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dws3ZQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Richard B. Goetz, Esq. Zoheb P. Noorani, Esq. Andrew M. Levine, Esq. Jessica A. Snyder, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com znoorani@omm.com andrewlevine@omm.com jsnyder@omm.com FIVE BELOW: Rodriguez Sues Over Undisclosed Lie Detector Tests -------------------------------------------------------------- Angelimarly Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 2584CV01163 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Mass. Gene Law which requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. Despite this abundantly clear mandate, Defendant does not provide such written notice of rights in its Massachusetts job applications. Under Mass. Gen. Laws persons aggrieved by a violation Of Mass. Gen. Laws have a private right of action for such Violations, for injunctive relief and damages, including minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation. Mass. Gen. Laws also expressly authorizes class actions, providing that a civil action may be brought by a person "in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and, for other similarly situated," says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied to work as a Seasonal Sales Associate at Defendant's store in Leominster, Massachusetts. The Defendant operates throughout and employs a significant number of residents in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 307-6100 Email: godkin@bimbaumgodkin.com kmzer@bimbaumgodkin.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com FLANIGAN'S MNG'T: Gampong Seeks Certification of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Al Nawas Gampong, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated individuals, v. Flanigan's Management Services, Inc. and Richard Eaton, Case No. 1:25-cv-21494-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action pursuant TO 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Flanigan's has a common corporate policy to prevent hourly employees from incurring overtime and punishing supervisors who allowed hourly employees to incur overtime. With that incentive structure, Flanigan's managers throughout the company forced hourly employees to clock out and continue working rather than permit them to record overtime hours. That common practice led to common violations of the FLSA for Servers and Bartenders across the Flanigan's restaurant group, and employees have demonstrated their eagerness to recover pay they should have received. In summary, the Plaintiff and all other Servers and Bartenders employed at any of Defendant Flanigan's twenty-five Restaurants in South Florida within the past three years are unified by a common theory of FLSA violations caused by Flanigan's unlawful underreporting of hours worked. Because the Court does not make credibility determinations or conduct individualized inquiries at the conditional certification phase, the Plaintiff's evidence alone is enough for the Court to grant conditional certification. The Plaintiff now to conditionally certify the following collective of similarly situated Servers and Bartenders: "All current and former non-exempt Servers and Bartenders who worked at a Flanigan's Seafood Bar and Grill in the last three years preceding this lawsuit through the entry of judgment who were not paid one-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a work week." Gampong worked for the Defendants as a Server at the Coconut Grove Restaurant from June 2024 to March 2025. Flanigan's operates 25 restaurants across South Florida known as Flanigan's Seafood Bar and Grill. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oBCHBQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia J. Chastain, Esq. Alexander Meier, Esq. LEE MEIER LAW FIRM 695 Pylant Street NE, Suite 105 Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 474-7628 E-mail: lchastain@leemeier.law ameier@leemeier.law - and - Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 E-mail: elliot@kingsiegel.com FNZ GROUP: Faces Employee-Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Joyce Moullakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that hundreds of employees of FNZ, the wealth technology giant that counts National Australia Bank and Colonial First State as customers, are preparing to lodge a class action against the company. A group of more than 300 FNZ staff who are also long-standing shareholders -- based across the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Asia -- have engaged New Zealand law firm MC to put the finishing touches on a statement of claim. It claims a spate of poorly structured FNZ capital raises diluted their class of shareholding by as much as $US4.5 billion ($7.1 billion), leading to oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct under New Zealand's Companies Act. As well as the group of more than 300 staff, hundreds of additional FNZ employees participating in a share-based incentive scheme are also considering joining the class action, sources with knowledge of the lawsuit said. An FNZ spokesman declined to comment. The potential class action represents one of the biggest in value ever straddling New Zealand and Australia. Other Australian customers of FNZ include accounting services firm Findex and wealth management group Mason Stevens. FNZ was founded by Adrian Durham in New Zealand more than 20 years ago and employs about 6000 people across 30 countries. The company, which provides technology, operations and other services to financial services groups, is headquartered in London but domiciled in New Zealand. FNZ has $US1.7 trillion in assets under administration and has high-profile backers including former United States vice president Al Gore's Generation Investment Management, Canadian pension fund Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, and private equity group Motive Partners. Shareholders who are present and former employees represent the second-largest FNZ investor group, owning about 35 per cent of the company. Blythe Masters, Motive Ventures' chairwoman and former boss of Digital Asset Holdings, took the reins as FNZ chief executive last year when Durham became a senior adviser and non-executive director. The Australian Financial Review is not suggesting any wrongdoing by the FNZ board or management, just that the legal action is being prepared by long-standing FNZ employee investors. The employee-shareholder class action will question three capital raisings conducted by FNZ over the past 18 months. Last year, the company raised $US1 billion through two rounds of preference share issuance to existing institutional shareholders and also issued those investors warrants. The preference shares ranked higher than employee shares, diluting the latter group. Despite a brewing dispute and the company pledging so-called catch up notices to employee shareholders, earlier this month FNZ raised another $US500 million again using a preference share structure. In 2022, the company was valued at $US20 billion, although a valuation was not disclosed with the latest fundraising. Employee shareholders wanting to participate in the catch-up offers -- which involve tipping in further funds -- have reported being confused by the terms and changes in currencies. A New Zealand-based FNZ employee said many longstanding staff shareholders had backed the company in the hope of a sizable payday in the future, which was unlikely given the structures of the latest raisings. "A lot of people are pretty devastated to learn that payday is being eroded pretty quickly by these capital raises," the staff member added, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he remains employed by FNZ. "There is now quite a toxic relationship and complete distrust. And that … can be quite corrosive to your motivation and everyone's motivation. It's our customers that end up suffering." A spokesman for the FNZ shareholder-employee group said: "They are treating B-class shareholders -- mums and dads -- like institutional investors. The fact they have now delayed the catch-up notice due date twice indicates that we think they have concerns over the process they have followed." In 2023, FNZ identified Australia as a jurisdiction ripe for disruption and a top-three growth market for the company. FNZ has had an active presence in the country over the past six years and aided Colonial in replacing legacy technology when it was appointed the company's wrap platform provider. FNZ acquired ASX-listed wealth technology and capital markets firm GBST in 2019 before being forced to divest the business by the UK competition regulator. Phil Cave-led private equity firm Anchorage then purchased GBST and sold the company's capital markets division back to FNZ. The global wealth behemoth has kept a keen eye on potential acquisitions in Australia over the past five years, including being associated with tilts for software group Bravura and financial technology firm Iress. In 2022, FNZ made an unsuccessful $1.5 billion bid for Link Administration's retirement and superannuation solutions unit. Former ASX deputy chief executive Peter Hiom joined FNZ's shareholder Motive as an industry partner in 2021. He and Masters crossed paths at the ASX when the exchange was pursuing an upgrade of its clearing and settlement system based on blockchain technology. That project was riddled with problems and then shelved in late 2022. [GN] FUTURE MOTION: Spader Sues Over Strict Products Liability --------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Eli Spader, an individual, and others similarly situated v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-03750 (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2025), is brought as a direct and proximate result of the strict products liability and negligence of Defendant Future Motion. The Onewheel is operated, controlled, and monitored, in part, by an application ("app") that users can download and install on their phones. The app allows users to customize their ride with what the company refers to as "Digital Shaping" and allows the user to monitor battery status, toggle the LED lights on the board, and track riding data. Upon information and belief, the Onewheel application was also developed and designed by Defendant Future Motion. On May 3, 2023, Ben was riding his Onewheel GT on a paved residential street when the Onewheel suddenly and unexpectedly came to an abrupt halt, violently launching Ben off the device and onto the pavement. As a result of the incident, Ben sustained, inter alia, a closed head injury and multiple fractures to his right arm and elbow. On November 16, 2022, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning3 urging consumers to stop using all Onewheel models which have been sold since 2013, including the Onewheel GT model at issue in this case. The CPSC's investigation found that Onewheels can fail by either failing to balance the rider or by stopping suddenly while in motion, causing the rider to be suddenly and forcefully ejected from the product, which can result in serious injury or death to the rider; just as the Subject Onewheel did in this case. Despite the CPSC's findings and urgent warnings, Future Motion refused for nearly a year to agree to recall its Onewheels, demonstrating a callous disregard for the rights and safety of consumers, including Ben. Future Motion manufactured its Onewheels with a defect that made them inherently dangerous. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Future Motion's conduct, the Plaintiff in this case incurred significant and painful bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and diminished enjoyment of life, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. Future Motion designs, develops, manufactures, produces, distributes, markets, and sells a line of personal "riding machines" commonly referred to as "Onewheel(s)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Johnson, Esq. Adam J. Kress, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (612) 436-1800 Fax: (612) 436-1801 Email: mjohnson@johnonsbecker.com akress@johnsonbecker.com GEWEKE HOSPITALITY: Burriss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEWEKE HOSPITALITY, et al. The case is styled as Alec Burriss, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEWEKE HOSPITALITY, HOMEWOOD SUITES MANAGEMENT LLC, HOMEWOOD SUITES EMPLOYER LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV010405 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Geweke Hospitality -- https://www.gewekehospitality.com/ -- is a hotel management company that has been developing and managing hotels in California since 1988.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GMRI INC: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GMRI, INC., et al. The case is styled as Alfredo Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GMRI, INC.; DARDEN CONCEPTS, INC., Case No. 25STCV12730 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GMRI Inc. operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers flatbreads, meals, wine bars, lunch and dinner menus, bar menus, private dining services, chef's table menus, and alternative menus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that On April 18, 2025, Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against a healthcare technology company (the "Company") and certain of its officers (the "Individual Defendants"). Barsuli v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-3282-AB (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the Company's business practices and relationships with pharmacies, which allegedly came to light when defendants disclosed the financial impact of a large grocery chain's pricing agreements with the Company's customers. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead any false or misleading statements or omissions. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made fourteen misleading statements regarding the success of the Company's prescription discount pricing tool, which allows consumers to compare prices negotiated by the Company's customers, Pharmacy Benefit Managers ("PBMs"), at various retail pharmacies. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants misled investors by stating that the Company's discount codes could be used at "70,000 pharmacies" while allegedly omitting that the Company "lacked direct contracts with pharmacies mandating the acceptance" of prescription discount codes. According to plaintiffs, this gave an "impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from one that actually exist[ed]." Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants failed to disclose that 25% of the Company's pharmacy transaction revenue came from a single grocery store chain that had been in contract disputes with certain PBMs. The Court grouped the alleged misrepresentations into four categories, concerning: (1) the number of pharmacies that accept the Company's discount codes; (2) the Company's relationships with pharmacies; (3) the single grocery chain that accounts for 25% of the Company's revenue accepting the Company's discount codes; and (4) statements made by the Individual Defendants. With respect to the first category, the Court held that because the Company disclosed throughout its IPO offering documents that its business model relied on contracts with PBMs and that it did not have control over contracts between pharmacies and PBMs, plaintiffs failed to plead a material misrepresentation because the allegedly omitted information "already entered the market." For the same reasons, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegations that the second category of statements concerning the Company's relationships with retail pharmacies were false or misleading, emphasizing that the Company "repeatedly disclosed" that its contracts were with PBMs, not with retail pharmacies. As to the third category, the Court held that none of the statements allegedly identifying a certain grocery chain pharmacy as accepting the Company's discount codes were false or misleading, because the Company had publicly disclosed its revenue concentration and dependence on a limited number of pharmacy chains. In so holding, the Court found that plaintiff failed to adequately plead that defendants had "inside information" on the grocery chain's contract renegotiations with the PBMs and that the challenged statements actually warned that PBM contracts might decrease. As to the final category, the Court held that none of the statements allegedly made by the Individual Defendants were false or misleading, finding that statements that the Company had "fruitful," "strong," and "incredible" relationships with PBMs and retail pharmacies were goodwill valuations that constituted nonactionable corporate puffery and opinions. The Court further held that plaintiffs failed to allege that, at the time the alleged statements were made, the statements were objectively untrue, or that any of the Individual Defendants did not genuinely hold those beliefs. Having found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a Section 10(b) claim, the Court dismissed the derivative control person claims against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a). The Court granted plaintiffs leave to further amend their complaint. [GN] GOODRX INC: Booneville Class Action Suit Moved to D.R.I. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled BOONEVILLE PHARMACY OF MS, INC.; BYHALIA DRUG COMPANY, LLC; and OKOLONA PHARMACY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE, SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00180, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Rhode Island on April 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03002-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy, and referred to Judge Lincoln D Almond. GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy information services. The Company offers pricing information, payment guidance, discount programs, alerts, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. 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 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com - and - Michael Gratz, Jr., Esq. GRATZ & GRATZ, P.A. 312 North Green Street Tupelo, MS 38804 Telephone: (662) 844-5531 Facsimile: (662) 844-8747 Email: michael@gratzandgratz.com GOODRX INC: CAAS Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as CAAS, LLC doing business as: Harbor Pharmacy, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10899 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03015-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: Stephen Gerard Larson, Esq. Daniel R. Lahana, Esq. Paul Anthony Rigali, Esq. LARSON LLP 555 South Flower Street 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 436-4888 Fax: (213) 623-2000 Email: slarson@larsonllp.com dlahana@larsonllp.com prigali@larsonllp.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (868) 209-6941 Fax: (707) 334-3727 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: David Ramraj Singh, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway 4th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Fax: 6650-802-3100 - and - Jonathan S. Tam, Esq. Kimberly O. Branscome, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON AND GARRISON LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 982-4346 Fax: (310) 943-1785 Email: jtam@paulweiss.com kbranscome@paulweiss.com - and - Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq. Natalie Marie Pita, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Phone: (212) 373-3056 Email: jrubin@paulweiss.com npita@paulweiss.com GOODRX INC: DAO Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as DAO Pharmacy Inc. doing business as: RIOS PHARMACY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situate v. GoodRX Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts Inc., Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01829 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on April 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03017-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: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-3895 GOOGLE LLC: Kande Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ansoumane Kande, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25CV462648 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-03733. The Plaintiff asserts violations of the California Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and California's common law of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiff brings claims individually and on behalf of a putative class defined as: "all persons and entities in California who, from January 1, 2021 to the present, placed display ads on websites operated by a non-Google entity via Google Ads." The Plaintiff seeks "injunctive relief by seeking to enjoin Defendant from future violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Cartwright Act." The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative class, also seeks equitable relief, damages and/or restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and other relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justina K. Sessions, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: (650) 618-9250 Email: justina.sessions@freshfields.com HABIBI'S HOT CHICKEN: Erina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HABIBI'S HOT CHICKEN, INC., et al. The case is styled as John Gandy Erina, an individual on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. HABIBI'S HOT CHICKEN, INC., DANA ABDELKHALIQ, HANY ABDELKHALIQ, OMAR ABDELKHALIQ, Case No. 25STCV10854 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Habibi's Hot Chicken -- https://www.habibishotchicken.com/ -- is a Southern California-based halal hot chicken joint founded in 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com HARRISON POULTRY: Atkinson Sues Over Recent Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Karice Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARRISON POULTRY INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00119-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 30, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach") involving Defendant and for the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, ITIN, dates of birth ("PII"), and their Medical history, conditions, treatments, and diagnoses ("PHI") (collectively PHI and PII herein referred to as "Private Information") Current and former HPI employees are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain employment or certain employment benefits at Defendant. Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee employer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' Private Information and give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant is a poultry company that produces 380 million live pounds of chickens per year, producing a golden-yellow chicken that they sell domestically and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com HISENSE GROUP: Faces Additional Suit in Ill. Over False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------- Nam Hyun-woo, writing for The Korea Times, reports that Hisense faces additional class action suit in Illinois. Doubts over Chinese makers' quantum dot LED (QLED) TVs are growing in the United States, as customers in Illinois recently filed a class action lawsuit against Hisense for alleged false advertising of its QLED TVs -- following similar cases in California and New York. According to a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 10, Kalp Khamesra, a Chicago resident, on behalf of similarly situated others, sued Hisense USA for violating Illinois' consumer fraud statute and negligent misrepresentation. In the filing, the complaint accused Hisense of deceiving consumers by marketing certain models -- including the QD5, QD6, QD65, QD7, U7 and U7N series -- as QLED TVs despite having been long "aware that its QLED TVs do not have the advertised QLED technology." The complaint argued that Hisense's televisions either failed to have QLED technology or had QLED technology present in "such negligible amounts that it does not meaningfully contribute to the performance" as advertised. It continued that the quantum dot technology leaves known chemical markers, thus making it easy to verify whether it is actually present in a television. The plaintiff, who purchased a 75-inch U7N model from Costco on Oct. 30, 2024, claims he was misled by product pages that promoted benefits such as "see color like you've never seen it before" and "over a billion individual shades." "Not only are Hisense's statements untrue and misleading, but whether a television actually has quantum dot technology cannot be readily verified by the consumer, especially prior to purchase," the filing reads. The Illinois case follows earlier class actions filed in California and New York. In February, Hisense USA faced a class action complaint filed by a New York resident who alleged that Hisense falsely advertised its QLED TVs, even though the televisions "may not actually have" quantum dot technologies or had a negligible amount of materials. Also in February, TCL North America was sued by a California resident for allegedly violating false advertising laws, with the lawsuit questioning the presence of quantum dot technology in TCL's QLED TVs. The suits come after a series of reports in September last year, including that of The Korea Times, about a Korean panel component manufacturer's test on TCL televisions. The manufacturer, Hansol Chemical, commissioned tests of three TCL QD televisions -- the C655, C655 Pro and the C755 -- to global testing and certification agencies SGS and Intertek and found that the TVs lacked the key elements required for QD technology, such as indium or cadmium. Regarding the test results, Hansol Chemical filed a complaint with Korea's Fair Trade Commission, claiming that TCL violated the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising. The antitrust watchdog is currently reviewing the case. [GN] HUFFY CORPORATION: Crowe Sues Over Defective Products ----------------------------------------------------- Jackie Crowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUFFY CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00136-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, April 30, 2025), is brought against Defendant as a result of the Defendant's Huffy Corporation's Ride on Torex Utility Terrain Vehicle (hereinafter "Products", "Torex" or "UTV") for normal household use which contained defects. The product was sold in Walmart stores and on Walmart.com from August 1, 2019, through December 18, 2024. As such, these Torex UTVs are distributed, marketed, and sold by Defendant to consumers across the United States. Unfortunately, the Products are defective because it is susceptible of having a connector within its wiring system degrade causing the toy to overheat during its use posing a burn hazard and fire risk to the children operating the ride on toy. The Recall applies to 24,700 units that were manufactured and sold between August 1, 2019, through December 18, 2024, at an approximate price of $600. The date codes for the recalled Products are printed on a label located under the body of the UTV near the rear wheel. The Product is defective because the wiring for the Torex UTV 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. 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 Plaintiff purchased the Product, while lacking the knowledge that the Product could have its wiring system 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product as "new" and intended it for ordinary use. Huffy Corporation. is a US corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614)-696-7394 Fax: (614)-228-1862 Email: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222 – 2222 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com J. J. F. MANAGEMENT: Amrine Files Suit in D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. J. F. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as Christopher Amrine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J. J. F. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a FITZGERALD AUTO MALLS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01377 (D. Md., April 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. J. J. F. Management Services, Inc. doing business as Fitzgerald Auto Mall is a family owned and operated auto dealership that was founded in 1966, with its first location opening in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JET LIMOUSINES: McGhee Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William McGhee and Michael Reynolds, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC; JET Limousines Operations, LLC; Arizona Commercial Transportation Services, LLC; Transportation Inc.; Salt River Tubing & Recreation, Inc.; Salt River Tubing Operations, LLC; William Jinks; Mary Ann Cleary; and Eugene Thomas, Case No. 2:24-cv-03394-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the Plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I) as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) directing that notice of this FLSA collective action be provided to all members of the proposed FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (3) requiring the Defendants to provide the names, position(s) held, employment dates, employment location(s), the entity for whom the employee worked or works, the last known address, e-mail address, telephone number(s) (home and cell, if applicable), date of birth, and social security numbers for all potential collective action members in Excel format within 10 business days of the Court's order; (4) approving the form and manner of distribution of the Notice and Consent to Sue Form; and (5) appointing the law firm of Martin & Bonnett, PLLC as interim FLSA counsel. The Plaintiffs request such additional relief as is just and proper. The proposed FLSA collective includes the following: "All current and former employees of the Defendants who have performed chauffeur services for J.E.T. Limousines & Transportation, LLC at any time from and after Nov. 29, 2021." Excluded from the collective are any of the Defendants' managers and employees whose primary duties were not the transportation of the Defendants' customers. The Plaintiff McGhee filed the initial complaint on Nov. 29, 2024 The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 28, 2025. In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to compensate the Plaintiffs statutorily required overtime wages in violation of the FLSA, and knowingly and willfully withheld tips in violation of the FLSA. JET Limousines offers chauffeured services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j1A5Z3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Facsimile: (602) 240-2345 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com dbonnett@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com JIB HOLDINGS I: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JIB HOLDINGS I, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marcos Reyes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JIB HOLDINGS I, LLC, Case No. 25STCV12653 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." JIB Holdings LLC is a company based in Lancaster, California specializing in providing innovative solutions for the manufacturing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Fazio, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 - and - Marcos Reyes, Esq. MARCOS D. REYES LAW OFFICE 4111 S Richmond St Chicago, IL 60632 Phone: +1 (773) 471-9288 - and - Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law JOY'S DELI GROCERY: Casado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Casado, and Desire Castillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JOY'S DELI GROCERY CORP. (d/b/a JOY'S DELI GROCERY), JORGE LUIS SANCHEZ, and MIRTHA CASTILLO, Case No. 1:25-cv-03561 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Castillo the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she worked over 10 hours per day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Joy's Deli Grocery Corp. and were employed as deli worker, sandwich maker, and cashier. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli/grocery located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 KAJABI LLC: Murphy Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAJABI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03237 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://kajabi.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kajabi, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bordelon Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brent Bordelon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC. dba KELLY BENEFITS, a Maryland corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:25-cv-01372 (D. Md., April 30, 2025), is brought to secure redress against Kelly Benefits for its reckless and negligent violation of their privacy rights. On April 21, 2025, Kelly Benefits informed its customers that it "recently learned" that an unauthorized third-party hacker obtained access to its internal data network and subsequently accessed and removed certain files containing the Personal Identifying Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") between December 12, 2024 and December 17, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries and damages. As a result of Kelly Benefits' wrongful actions and inactions, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information has been compromised. Plaintiff and Class Members have had their privacy rights violated and are now exposed to a heightened significant risk of identity theft and credit fraud for the remainder of their lifetimes. Plaintiff and Class Members must now spend time and money on prophylactic measures, such as increased monitoring of their personal and financial accounts and the purchase of credit monitoring services, to protect himself from future loss. Plaintiff and Class Members have also lost the value of their Private Information. As a result of Kelly Benefits' wrongful actions and inactions, sensitive information was stolen. Plaintiff and Class Members who have had their Private Information compromised have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise suffered damages. Plaintiff and Class Members bring this action to secure redress against LSC, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had their Private Information collected, stored, and ultimately breached by Kelly Benefits. Kelly Benefits is a benefits administration company based in Maryland that provides services, including but not limited to, consulting, brokerage, and administration services for employee benefits including online benefit administration, consolidated invoices, and compliance oversight programs for employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Bayles, Esq. BAYLES LAW GROUP PLLC 10175 West Twain Avenue, Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89147 Phone: (202) 679-9997 Email: seth@bayleslawgroup.net - and - Jesenia A Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfinn.com JeseniaMartinezsTeam@wilshirelawfinn.com KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT: Anguiano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kinecta Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Natalie Anguiano, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Kinecta Federal Credit Union, Case No. 25STCV10850 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Kinecta Federal Credit Union -- https://www.kinecta.org/ -- is a federally chartered credit union based in Manhattan Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste, 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com LOANCARE LLC: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $5.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that LoanCare, LLC and parent company Fidelity National Financial, Inc. have agreed to pay a $5.9 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit over a November 2023 data breach that affected approximately 1.3 million people. The court-approved website for the LoanCare data breach settlement can be found at LoanCareDataSettlement.com. The class action settlement, which received preliminary approval from the court on March 24, 2025, covers all United States residents who received notice from the defendants that their personal information may have been compromised in the LoanCare cybersecurity incident, which occurred on November 19, 2023. To receive a LoanCare settlement payout, class members must submit a valid, timely claim form online or by mail by June 4, 2025. You can submit a LoanCare claim form online by heading to this page and entering the notice ID and confirmation code you received in your class action settlement notice. A PDF claim form is also available for download. Covered consumers who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $1,500 in reimbursement for "ordinary" losses, such as fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or credit freezes, that are fairly traceable to the LoanCare data breach. Class members can also get reimbursed up to $5,000 for documented "extraordinary" losses. These could include losses resulting from fraud or identity theft. Alternatively, eligible LoanCare data breach victims can opt for a $100 cash payment. All payouts to class members will be increased or decreased on a pro rata basis depending on the number of valid claims submitted. Covered individuals may also elect to enroll in three years of identity monitoring services. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the LoanCare settlement at a hearing on September 4, 2025. Eligible class members will be issued benefits and cash payments after the deal receives final approval and any appeals are resolved. The LoanCare class action lawsuit claimed an unauthorized third-party accessed personal information within Fidelity National Financial's systems around November 19, 2023 due to the defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity safeguards. According to the settlement agreement, the data breach impacted customers' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and loan numbers. [GN] LOREAL USA INC: Snow Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jennifer Snow, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Loreal USA, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. 1:24-cv-00110 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03583-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hannah Quicksell, Esq. LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2775 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 568-1990 - and - Margery S. Bronster, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING 53 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 483-1000 - and - Robert M. Hatch, Esq. LOVELL, WHITE, DURRANT One IBM Plaza 330 N. Wabash Avenue Chicago, Il 60611 Phone: (312) 832-4400 - and - Stephanie Sherman, Esq. WISNER BAUM 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 207-3233 Fax: (310) 820-7444 The Defendants are represented by: C. Michael Heihre, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE LLP Cades Schutte Building 1000 Bishop Street 12th Flr Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 521-9200 Fax: 540-5009 - and - Cynthia A Castillo, Esq. MaryJo Lopez-Oneal, Esq. Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 954-4480 Fax: (415) 954-4480 Email: ccastillo@fbm.com mlopezoneal@fbm.com tmayhew@fbm.com - and - Michi Momose, Esq. CADES SCHUTTE LLP Cades Schutte Building 1000 Bishop Street 12th Flr Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 521-9200 MAR MULTISERVICES: Court Dismisses Cortez Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yoana Luna Cortez, v. Mar Multiservices LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02335-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. -- The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants JJJ Restaurants LLC, Arturo Rubio Cervantes, and Guadalupe Rubio Arroyo are dismissed without prejudice. -- The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order no later than Thursday, May 15, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's pending Motion for Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff shall have leave to re-file the Motion for Conditional Certification as to any remaining Defendants after the Plaintiff files her Second Amended Complaint. The case is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Yoana Cortez under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. sections 201 et seq. In her First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiff brings a single count for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207 against nine corporate entities as well as Arturo Rubio Cervantes and his spouse, Guadalupe Rubio Arroyo. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aTkXCE at no extra charge.[CC] MARTIN MARIETTA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clanton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD CLANTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01288-GPG-STV (D. Colo., April 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Clanton was employed by the Defendant as a finish operator. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. produces aggregates for the construction industry, including highways, infrastructure, commercial, and residential. The Company also manufactures and markets magnesia-based products, including heat-resistant refractory products for the steel industry, chemical products for industrial and environmental uses, and dolomitic lime. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com MDL 3149: Buack-Shelton v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buack-Shelton, et al., v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00093-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Buack-Shelton 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 Buack-Shelton 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=Uo5HSu at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Campbell v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campbell v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00310-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Campbell 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 Campbell n 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 Holdings, Inc. 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=cj72fq at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Champney v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Champney, et al., v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00211-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Champney 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 Champney 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=dHCFlH at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Crockran v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crockran v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00171-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Crockran 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 Crockran 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=h6mSAd at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: E.H. v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.H. v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00152-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the E.H. 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 E.H. 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=WUp8TM at no extra charge.[CC] MESSENGER: Settles Severance Pay Class Action Suit for $$4.5-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Baragona, writing for Independent, reports that more than a year after hundreds of journalists were suddenly left jobless and without severance pay when the troubled digital media startup The Messenger crashed and burned, the owners of the defunct site have settled the class action lawsuit brought by the laid-off employees for $4.5 million. The settlement, which is still contingent upon a separate bankruptcy liquidation case in a Delaware court, brings to an end a contentious legal fight between the nearly 300 former employees of The Messenger and Jimmy Finkelstein, the media mogul who launched the ambitious news outlet in 2023 with $50 million of financial backing only to see it collapse within eight months. The class action lawsuit, which senior producer Pilar Belendez-Desha filed on behalf of roughly 275 Messenger employees impacted by the site's closure, was filed a day after Finkelstein informed the newsroom in January 2024 that The Messenger was immediately shutting down and none of the staff would be receiving any severance pay or insurance benefits moving forward. At the time of the "centrist" news site's implosion, Finkelstein -- who had previously owned The Hill -- had been desperately trying to raise additional capital to keep the publication afloat, only to come up short. Despite previously expressing optimism to staff that investors were lining up to pump money into The Messenger, Finkelstein broke the news in an email to employees on January 31, 2024, that he was "personally devastated" to announce the site was shutting down "effective immediately" as he had "exhausted every option available" to raise enough funds. In fact, much of the staff -- including The Messenger's editor-in-chief -- said they hadn't immediately been informed of the site's shutdown after it was first reported by The New York Times. According to the class action suit, the former employees alleged that The Messenger violated the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to provide proper notice prior to the site's sudden closure. "Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, a mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant on January 31, 2024, and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant," the lawsuit stated. The plaintiffs sought wages, health insurance premiums and accrued vacation and holiday pay for a period of 60 days following the closure of The Messenger. Additionally, they demanded two months' worth of benefits, which included life and health insurance coverage. Over the past few months, the case appeared close to reaching a settlement. In February, media newsletter Breaker reported that Finkelstein was "about to make good with the hundreds of workers who were abruptly laid off," noting the shuttered site's parent company JAF Communications had agreed to settle the lawsuit with the former employees. After some delays, the agreement was reached this month, and a joint motion for settlement approval was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday, April 25. According to the settlement agreement reached between the parties, JAF Communications "has denied it violated any WARN Act, law, or regulation, and in fact it claims that it acted in full compliance with their requirements and does not owe any employee salaries or benefits." At the same time, the company has agreed to settle with the plaintiffs through a consent judgment for a total of $4.5 million. Still, it remains to be seen whether the former employees will receive all or even part of this money, as JAF is still undergoing proceeding to liquidate all of its assets. "This settlement will not result in immediate payment to the class members, because Defendant's assets are being liquidated in a separate proceeding in Delaware state court," the agreement notes. "Class Counsel intends to recover any available proceeds (up to $4.5 million) from the liquidation." In a notice to the plaintiffs in the case, it also specifically states that "the settlement does not guarantee that you will be paid" due to the efforts to recover money from what remains of JAF Communications. "The ABC proceeding is similar to a bankruptcy proceeding in Delaware State court, where JAF's assets are being liquidated," the notice continues. "The consent judgment here allows Class Counsel, the Class, and Plaintiff to go to the [the other] proceeding to enforce the consent judgment of $4,500,000.00 against the assets of JAF being liquidated in the [other] proceedings." Lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] MILE MARKER: Thompson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEXUS THOMPSON-BUTCHER and VANAECIA MORAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILE MARKER ONE, LLC and CAPE ANN MARINA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11022 (D. Mass., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law, the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Massachusetts Tips Law including failure to pay minimum wage and unlawful retention of tips. Plaintiffs Thompson-Butcher and Moran worked for the Defendants at the Mile Marker One restaurant in Gloucester, Massachusetts as a bartender and as a server from approximately March 2023 through September 2024 and from approximately April 2024 through August 2024, respectively. Mile Marker One, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in Gloucester, Massachusetts. Cape Ann Marina, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator in Gloucester, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com MILLENIUM GENERAL: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Millenium General Maintenance, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Castro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Millenium General Maintenance, LLC, Case No. 25STCV12675 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Millenium General Maintenance LLC is a versatile and reliable maintenance company offering a wide range of services to meet various needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MUJI U.S.A.: Carlino Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages --------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Carlino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MUJI U.S.A. LIMITED, Case No. 1:25-cv-03562 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay wages. The Plaintiff was compensated by MUJI on a bi-weekly basis consistently throughout their employment until approximately November 2024. During Plaintiff's employment with MUJI, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff her wages timely when due. As a result of the untimely payments, Plaintiff forwent the opportunity to invest or otherwise use the money to which she was entitled and she was deprived of the time value of their money, including but not limited to, interest. The Plaintiff's injuries were caused by Defendant, who failed to pay Plaintiff timely each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by MUJI as a retail employee. MUJI owns and operates retail stores in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: Brent Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Goals Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Raikka Brent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Goals Solutions Inc. doing business as: Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, Case No. 1:25-cv-03584 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. My Goals Solutions Inc. doing business as Goals Plastic Surgery -- https://www.goalsplasticsurgery.com/ -- is a leader in cosmetic and plastic surgery, dedicated to helping individuals achieve their ideal aesthetic outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com NAPCO SECURITY: Shareholders Sue Over Misleading Material Info -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Napco Security Technologies, Inc. ("Napco" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NSSC). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Napco's overall expected growth and strength in the Company's hardware division while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Napco's ability to forecast the demand for its products. If you bought shares of Napco between February 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/napco-security-technologies/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 24, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over Athletes' Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the National Collegiate Athletic Association has convinced a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking compensation for thousands of former student athletes who played team sports in college prior to 2016. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan said the claims in the proposed antitrust class action against the NCAA, the governing body for U.S. collegiate athletics, were filed too late. The former athletes "sat on their hands for more than a decade before bringing this lawsuit," Engelmayer wrote. The judge ruled for the NCAA, dismissing the lawsuit. Plaintiffs generally face a four-year window to bring claims under U.S. antitrust law. Attorneys for the former players did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The NCAA in a statement welcomed the judge's order, saying the court had "definitively examined and dismissed" the claims. "We are hopeful that several of the copycat cases will be similarly treated by other courts," the NCAA said. The lawsuit was filed last year by 16 former college players who said they should be paid for the NCAA's commercial use of their names, images and likenesses alleging violations of antitrust law. The plaintiffs, who sought to represent a class of former Division 1 NCAA athletes, include former members of a Kansas Jayhawks men's championship basketball team and other top players. They are not included in a multibillion-dollar settlement between the NCAA and thousands of current and former athletes that will for the first time provide some compensation to college athletes directly from schools. That settlement excludes student athletes before 2016. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California, is weighing final approval of that settlement. Last week she delayed her resolution while lawyers for the NCAA and student athletes hashed out further settlement details. Wilken said a provision of the settlement that would immediately cap the number of students named to team rosters was unfair to some members of the class action. The case is Chalmers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:24-cv-05008. For the players: Peggy Wedgworth, Scott Harris and James DeMay of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman; Elliot Abrams of Cheshire Parker Schneider; Stacy Miller of Miller Law Group; and Scott Tompsett of Tompsett Collegiate Sports Law [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Patricia Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and a putative class v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, and J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 2025CH03507 was removed from the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04745. The Complaint alleges five causes of action against Defendants: Counts I & II – Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") (against Nationstar); Count III – Declaration of Rights Under Contract (against Nationstar and JPMMAC); Count IV – Breach of Contract (against Nationstar and JPMMAC); Count V – Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") (against Nationstar).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Susan E. Groh, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Ste. 4100 Chicago, IL 60601-1818 Phone: (312) 849-8184 Email: sgroh@mcguirewoods.com - and - Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 501 Fayetteville Street, Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 755-6600 Email: eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com - and - Hannah K. Caison, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 201 N. Tryon Street, Suite 3000 Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 343-2160 Email: hcaison@mcguirewoods.com NEBRASKA BOOK: Court Certifies Class in Degroot ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Degroot v. Nebraska Book Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03041 (D. Neb., Filed March 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order granting motion to certify class and overruling objection: The parties' stipulated order is approved and will be entered separately. The motion to certify class is granted as set forth in the stipulated order. The defendants' objections 136 and 137 are overruled as moot. As provided by the stipulated order, the form class notice shall be submitted on or before May 9, 2025. A case management deadline is set for May 9, 2025. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Nebraska Book, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nebraska Book Holdings, Inc., which also includes PrismRBS, Campus Store Design, and Campus Advisory Services.[CC] NESPRESSO USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Machines -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Denise Fahey-Ramirez filed a class action lawsuit against Nespresso USA Inc. Why: Fahey-Ramirez claims Nespresso sold Vertuo Next coffee machines that leak water after normal use. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Nespresso sold Vertuo Next coffee machines that leak water after normal use, making them unusable. Plaintiff Denise Fahey-Ramirez claims Nespresso's Vertuo Next coffee machines, marketed as the most versatile model for the popular Nespresso Vertuo brewing system, are defective. Fahey-Ramirez argues the alleged defect causes the coffee machines to develop serious water leaks that impede the brewing process, rendering them unusable. "Contrary to Nespresso's representations, the Devices are designed and manufactured with an inherent defect that results in water leakage and compromises the ability of the machines to operate as intended," the Nespresso class action alleges. Fahey-Ramirez wants to represent a nationwide class and Florida subclass of consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations, purchased a Vertuo Next coffee machine that leaked. Nespresso Vertuo Next coffee machines leak water, class action says Fahey-Ramirez argues Nespresso has been aware of the leakage defect since the machines were introduced to the U.S. market in 2020 but has continued to sell them without addressing the issue. Consumers, meanwhile, have for years reported the coffee machines fail after limited use -- often shortly after the expiration of the one-year warranty -- yet Nespresso has failed to publicly acknowledge the defect or offer adequate remedies, the Nespresso class action alleges. "Through records of (customer) interactions alone, Nespresso has been made aware of the pervasiveness of the Leakage Defect and their customers' unhappiness," the Nespresso class action says. Fahey-Ramirez claims Nespresso is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty, and in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of monetary, treble and statutory damages for herself and all class members. In other coffee machine-related news, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined Keurig Dr. Pepper $1.5 million last year and ordered it to not file inaccurate information in its annual reports to the agency after determining Keurig made misleading statements in its annual reports about the recyclability of its K-Cup coffee and tea pods. Have you ever purchased a Vertuo Next coffee machine that leaked? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas A. Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP; David A. Goodwin, Daniel E. Gustafson and Kaitlyn L. Dennis of Gustafson Gluek PLLC; and Scott D. Hirsch of Scott Hirsch Law Group PLLC. The Nespresso class action lawsuit is Fahey-Ramirez, et al. v. Nespresso USA Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01684, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] NEWPORT HARBOR: Kavaja Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Henri Kavaja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEWPORT HARBOR PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP PATHOLOGY D/B/A MISSION LAGUNA PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP D/B/A BARR DERMATOPATHOLOGY, Case No. 30-2025-01474209-CU-PO-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., April 8, 2025), is brought arising 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 and the proposed Class Members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"1) and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on December 6, 2024 and again on January 10, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On November 11, 2024, Defendant became aware of a suspicious activity its IT Network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the incident. On January 10, 2025, Defendant made a public disclosure of the Data Breach and on December 6, 2025, and again on January 10, 2025, started sending notice letters to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information it collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. NHPMG is a specialized medical practice offering a wide range of pathology services to hospitals, clinics, and healthcare providers it also provides high-quality diagnostic services, including anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and cytopathology and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srounan. Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.c. N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: damel@slfla.co NEWPORT HARBOR: Killen Sues Over Failure to Secure Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Killen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEWPORT HARBOR PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP PATHOLOGY D/B/A MISSION LAGUNA PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP D/B/A BARR DERMATOPATHOLOGY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01474265-CU-PO-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., April 8, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendants' network and systems, including, without limitation, full name, social security number, date of birth, address, diagnosis, pathology test results (diagnosis), medical record number, driver's license numbers, unique or other government issued identification numbers and health insurance information (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). With this action, Representative Plaintiff(s) seek to hold Defendants' responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff(s) and others similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on or around November 11, 2024, by which unauthorized actors infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected systems and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII, which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach"). While Defendants became aware of "unauthorized activity" as early as November 11, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until March 28, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff(s) and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The notice received by Representative Plaintiff(s) was dated March 28, 2025. The Defendants acquired, collected and stored Representative Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' PHI/PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants knew, or should have known, that Representative Plaintiff(s) and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PHI/PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from HIPAA and other state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law principles. Representative Plaintiff(s) do/does not bring claims in this action for direct violations of HIPAA, but charge(s) Defendants with various legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set forth in HIPAA. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff(s) and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff(s)' and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. NHPMG is a specialized medical practice offering a wide range of pathology services to hospitals, clinics, and healthcare providers it also provides high-quality diagnostic services, including anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and cytopathology and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Srounan. Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.c. N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: damel@slfla.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04175-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to continue class certification deadlines under Local Civil Rue 23.1(B) pending the Court's entry of a scheduling order that includes class certification proceedings. In accordance with the Court's March 24, 2025 Opinion and Order (ECF 115), the Parties will submit their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan on May 23, 2025. The Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan will include a proposed discovery schedule and schedule for class certification briefing and discovery of class certification experts. The Parties will need additional time to conduct discovery in connection with class certification, and the default schedule under the Civil Local Rules does not provide adequate time for such discovery. The Parties have conferred and believe that good cause exists to modify the default schedule for class certification proceedings under the Civil Local Rules. The Joint Motion is not intended for the purposes of delay but rather to allow the Parties sufficient time to conduct discovery and address the issues likely to be raised in connection with Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Norfolk Southern engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGwhVY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Davis, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Jack Abbey Gephart, Esq. Evelyn Sanchez Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: jdavis@rgrdlaw.com aprice@rgrdlaw.com jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com jgephart@rgrdlaw.com egonzalez@rgrdlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com - and - Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com - and - Johnston De F. Whitman, Jr., Esq. Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq. Austin W. Manning, Esq. Vanessa M. Milan, Esq. Dylan J. Isenberg, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com nhasiuk@ktmc.com amanning@ktmc.com vmilan@ktmc.com disenberg@ktmc.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Cameron b. Roberts, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com croberts@caplancobb.com The Defendants are represented by: Hilary Houston Adams, Esq. HALL, BLOCH, GARLAND & MEYER, LLP 900 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30339-3099 Telephone: (678) 888-0036 Facsimile: (678) 379-6124 E-mail: hilaryadams@hbgm.com - and - Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. Tamar Kaplan-Marans, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com OMNI LOGISTICS: Filing for Class Cert in Magana Suit Due June 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIAN MAGANA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OMNI LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01337-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is June 18, 2025; and 2. The filing of this Joint Stipulation and any participation by the Defendant in written discovery at this stage shall not constitute a waiver, or otherwise impact any rights the Defendant may have to challenge jurisdiction of this case, including compelling arbitration of claims in this matter. Omni provides supply chain and logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ii0Opo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren M. Cohen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN M. COHEN, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 200-7893 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: darren@dcohenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah K. Hamilton, Esq. Dongying Zhang, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 918-3000 E-mail: shamilton@constangy.com dzhang@constangy.com OPW FUELING: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL QUEVEDO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPW FUELING COMPONENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00203-FL (E.D.N.C., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay proper wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operator, team lead, and technician from approximately October 2011 through September 2024. OPW Fueling Components LLC is a manufacturer of fuel transfer, containment, and dispensing products based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com ORACLE HEALTH: Mottley Files Suit in W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oracle Health. The case is styled as Shannon L. Mottley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Oracle Health, Case No. 4:25-cv-00308-SRB (W.D. Mo., April 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- formerly Cerner Corporation, is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com OREGON: Clingman Sues Over Validity of Oregon Revised Statue ------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY MICHAEL CLINGMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF OREGON; WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; and JON DOES 1-10, Defendants, (Case No. 3:25-cv-67458 (D. Or., April 24, 2025) seeks to challenge the Oregon Revised Statute. Oregon is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. It is a part of the Western U.S., with the Columbia River delineating much of Oregon's northern boundary with Washington, while the Snake River delineates much of its eastern boundary with Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented pro se. OUTERKNOWN LLC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Outerknown, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02406 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Outerknown provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.outerknown.com (hereinafter "Outerknown.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Outerknown.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Outerknown's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Outerknown provides to the public a website known as Outerknown.com which provides consumers with access to an array of clothes and accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.co OVERLAND CONTRACTING: Underpays Constructions Workers, Serrano Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER SERRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVERLAND CONTRACTING INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00063-WLS (M.D. Ga., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant on the DeSoto solar farm as a construction worker from approximately September 2022 to September 2023. Overland Contracting Inc. is a construction service contractor based in Lawrenceville, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com PARADIES SHOPS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $6.8MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that the Paradies Shops, LLC has agreed to pay more than $6.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the airport retail company failed to protect current and former employees' private information during an October 2020 data breach. The Paradies Shops data breach settlement, which received preliminary court approval on April 14, 2025, covers all United States residents to whom Paradies, through its vendor, Epiq, sent notice of the cyberattack. The deal covers approximately 72,376 people, according to the settlement agreement. To receive certain benefits from the $6,875,720 Paradies Shops class action settlement, eligible class members must submit a claim form by mail or online through the court-approved website once it is established. Court documents share that class members who file a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive up to $1,000 per person in compensation for documented "ordinary" out-of-pocket expenses that are reasonably linked to the data breach and were incurred between October 8, 2020 and the claim submission deadline. Per the agreement, these costs must be unreimbursed and may include fees associated with credit reports, credit monitoring expenses, phone charges, postage or mileage costs, and other miscellaneous losses. Class members may also submit a claim form to receive reimbursement for up to five hours of time spent responding to issues linked to the incident, at a rate of $30 per hour, subject to the $1,000 cap. This benefit is referred to as "ordinary" attested time. In addition, the agreement relays that consumers who believe they have suffered identity theft, fraud or other serious losses that are "fairly traceable" to the cyberattack may file a claim for documented "extraordinary" expenses, up to $25,000 per person. According to the document, these losses must be unreimbursed and must have been incurred since October 8, 2020 as a result of the possible misuse of personal data. Moreover, class members can submit a claim form to receive reimbursement for "extraordinary" attested time. This benefit provides consumers with compensation for up to 10 hours of time spent remedying identity theft, fraud or other data misuse related to the incident, at a rate of $30 per hour, the document explains. Class members affected by the Paradies Shops data breach may also elect to enroll in three years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring services at no cost. This benefit is available to all consumers regardless of whether they submit a claim for any above-mentioned Paradies Shops settlement payouts, court records relay. The settlement agreement notes that payments and credit monitoring benefits will be decreased on a pro rata basis as needed. Should funds remain after payment of these benefits, class members will automatically receive a pro-rated cash payout by mail, the document states. Consumers will not need to submit a claim form to receive this payment. Lastly, as part of the deal, Paradies Shops has agreed to implement changes to its business practices in response to the data breach. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement at a hearing set for July 24, 2025. According to the court's preliminary approval order, settlement notices will be issued 30 days after April 14, 2025, and class members will have 90 days from the date of mailing to submit a claim form. The Paradies Shops class action lawsuit alleged that the company -- which operates retail stores, restaurants and bars in more than 100 airports across the United States and Canada -- failed to properly safeguard employees' data when cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to its internal administrative system from October 8 to 13, 2020. The data breach lawsuit asserted that the cyberattack exposed workers' names, Social Security numbers and other highly sensitive information. [GN] PAUL EVANS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Paul Evans, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04732 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Paul Evans provides to their non-disabled customers through https://paulevansny.com (hereinafter "Paulevansny.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Paulevansny.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Paul Evans's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Paul Evans provides to the public a website known as Paulevansny.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of footwear including: Oxford shoes, loafers, leather boots, strap shoes, sneakers, sandals, belts, and shoe care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PHARMAVITE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Toxic Chemicals in Vitamins ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Nature Made Prenatal Multivitamin Folic Acid + DHA Softgels contain various toxic chemicals associated with cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm. The 30-page lawsuit comes after an independent research project known as PlasticList tested 312 products for plastic chemicals, including Nature Made's prenatal multivitamin. According to the case, PlasticList's December 2024 report indicates that the Nature Made supplements contained unsafe levels of phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) -- synthetic chemicals widely used in the manufacturing of plastic packaging. The complaint notes that phthalates and bisphenols can leach from plastic containers into food, and that exposure to these endocrine-disrupting chemicals is harmful to human health, fetal development and early-life growth. For instance, one type of phthalate allegedly found in the Nature Made supplements, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, has been associated with earlier menopause, low birth weight, pregnancy loss and preterm birth, the case contends. The chemical has also been categorized as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the filing shares. The lawsuit accuses defendant Pharmavite LLC of falsely advertising the Nature Made prenatal multivitamins as safe for consumption by pregnant and lactating women and their fetuses, newborns and infants. Pharmavite "knew or should have known" of the presence of harmful chemicals in its product yet failed to disclose this information to consumers to maximize its profits, the suit alleges. The case was filed in California by two residents who say they bought Nature Made Prenatal Multivitamin Folic Acid + DHA Softgels relying on the label representations that the product "[s]upports the development of baby's brain, eyes & nervous system." "Reasonable consumers believe that representations about supporting the development of a child during pregnancy would mean that the product is completely free of endocrine disrupting chemicals," the case says. "Expecting parents place a high value and price premium on supplements that are free of such substances, as [the defendant] knows." The Nature Made lawsuit claims the plaintiffs had no reason to believe that the products contained unsafe levels of phthalates and bisphenol and would not have bought the supplements had they known. The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased Nature Made Prenatal Multivitamin Folic Acid + DHA Softgels and all substantially similar products during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Schwartz Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Jonna Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00230 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-00981-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: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Raphael J. C. Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: (406) 452-8566 - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Margot Patricia Cutter, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 290-9400 Fax: (916) 669-4499 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: Spicuzza Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Christina Spicuzza, E.S., C.S., and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01353 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01016-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: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Patrick Thomas Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Fax: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com - and - Michael Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: aberry@justice4you.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: Valdovinos Suit Transferred to S.D. Californi ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Greghk Valdovinos, N.V., a minor; E.V., a minor; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01783 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01013-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: Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: White Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Michael White, on behalf of himself and as parent and guardian of his minor children, and others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00207 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-00973-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan R. Marx, Esq. CHALMERS ADAMS BACKER & KAUFMAN PLLC 204 North Person Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 701-0125 - and - Dennis James Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.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 RANGE RESOURCES: Notice of Class Certification Approved ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPERT, et al., v. RANGE RESOURCES -- APPALACHIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281 (W.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered an order approving the parties' jointly submitted Notice of Class Certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.[CC] RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Canada Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables Management Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Evelyn L. Canada, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Receivables Management Partners, LLC doing business as: RMP Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00648 (W.D. Tex., April 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Receivables Management Partners, LLC doing business as RMP Services, LLC -- https://receivemorermp.com/ -- is an award-winning healthcare financial services firm, RMP provides A/R management assistance for medical providers to focus on patients instead of payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8180 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Retirement Plans ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, d/b/a Discount Tire Co., Inc., and Empower Trust Company breach basic fiduciary duties under ERISA and violate the trust of plan participants by mismanaging the Discount Tire/America's Tire Retirement Plan. The Complaint alleges that Discount Tire and Empower failed to remove from the Plan a family of nine target date retirement funds managed by American Century Investment Management, Inc. that have significantly underperformed investment benchmarks and similar target date retirement funds for over fifteen years, costing participants millions of dollars in retirement savings. The American Century funds have over $500 million in plan assets invested in them, representing nearly half the value of the Plan. According to the allegations in the Complaint, the American Century Funds have been in the Plan under various names and forms since on or before January 2010. By December 2019, the cumulative investment performance of each of the nine target date funds had lagged their investment benchmark -- Standard & Poor's Target Retirement Date Index -- for ten years. Each of the nine funds also underperformed other target date retirement fund alternatives over the same period. American Century's underperformance continues to this day. Yet, Discount Tire has taken no action to replace American Century. As alleged, the consequences to employees are substantial: the decision not to remove the American Century Funds has cost the Discount Tire/America's Tire Retirement Plan and its participants millions of dollars in retirement savings. The named plaintiff, Cory McGeathy, filed this case on behalf of the Discount Tire plan, which has approximately 16,000 participants and over $1 billion in assets. Named as Defendants are The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, d/b/a Discount Tire Co., Inc.; The Reinalt-Thomas Board of Directors and its members; and Empower Trust Company, LLC. "As fiduciaries of the plan, Defendants are duty-bound to monitor the plan's investments continuously and remove imprudent ones," said Charles Field, Co-Chair of the firm's Financial Mismanagement and ERISA Litigation Practice Group and counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class. "This obligation is especially critical since these nine funds make up over 40% of the Plan's assets. Cases like this are an important tool for protecting the hard-earned retirement savings of employees." Leigh Anne St. Charles, Co-Chair of the firm's Financial Mismanagement and ERISA Litigation Practice Group and counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class, added "Plan participants have over $500 million invested in these nine target retirement date funds. As fiduciaries to the Plan, Discount Tire and Empower are obligated to monitor the Plan to ensure these investments are prudent. It is precisely that duty that this complaint alleges the Defendants have breached by failing to remove the American Century Funds." Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight has filed the Discount Tire ERISA complaint on the heels of several significant ERISA class settlements in 2024. In December 2024, the firm filed for preliminary approval of a record $69 million settlement in its multi-year class action against UnitedHealth Group. Earlier in 2024, Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, together with co-counsel, also obtained final approval of a $61 million settlement in a long-running ERISA class action against General Electric. The UnitedHealth and GE settlements were among the most significant ERISA settlements of 2024. They were also among the highest value settlements ever in cases involving allegedly poor-performing plan investments. About Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight is a public interest and civil rights law firm with offices in New York, Washington, DC, San Francisco, Palo Alto, Nashville, and San Diego. The firm focuses on executive representation, wrongful termination, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, wage theft and overtime violations, whistleblower and qui tam, sexual violence, Title IX violations and victims' rights, financial mismanagement and ERISA litigation, and Asian American litigation and finance matters. Our lawyers have recovered over $1 billion for our clients through many verdicts and settlements. In 2024, Forbes named Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight Chairman and Co-Founder David Sanford to its inaugural list of America's Top 200 Lawyers. The National Law Journal has selected Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight as Civil Rights Firm of the Year, and it has recognized the firm as both Employment Rights Firm of the Year and Human Rights Firm of the Year. Benchmark Litigation has named the firm Labor & Employment Firm of the Year, and Law360 has recognized the firm as Employment Practice Group of the Year. If you have potential legal claims and are seeking counsel, please call 646-768-7070 or email david.sanford@sanfordheisler.com. Attorneys at Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight would like to have the opportunity to help you. [GN] RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Seeks to Withdraw Davis as Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA , et al., v. RETREAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-80787-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Withdrawing Dedtra Davis as a named plaintiff and proposed class representative; 2. Deeming Dedtra Davis an absent class member; 3. Confirming that Ms. Davis shall remain eligible to share in any judgment or settlement achieved in this action; and 4. Providing that Ms. Davis shall not be required to participate discovery absent further order. Accordingly, the request is made in good faith. No tactical advantage is sought, nor would any prejudice to the Defendants result. The Plaintiffs Mia Williams, Brittany Calvert and Alisa Leggett remain committed to serving as class representatives, and the action will continue unabated. The Plaintiffs do not seek dismissal of Ms. Davis' individual claims. Instead, they merely request to transition her from a representative role to a passive class member role, preserving her rights consistent with the other members of the putative class. The Defendants have consented to the relief sought in this motion. The case involves claims under the federal WARN Act and applicable state wage laws, brought as a putative class and collective action. Retreat Behavioral is a provider of substance use and mental health treatment services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWkFmN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq. KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC 304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C Clearwater, FL 33765 Telephone: (727) 441-4947 Facsimile: (727) 447-3158 E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com mnadeau@employeerights.com - and - Michael A. Pancier, Esq. MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 Telephone: (954) 862-2217 E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soucek Due Jan. 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY SOUCEK, et al., v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter a case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Roblox's deadline to amend Cross-Claims: April 30, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiffs and Roblox to June 30, 2025 serve pre-class certification written discovery on each other: Deadline to disclose opening class Oct. 28, 2025 certification experts: Deadline to serve opening class Nov. 11, 2025 certification expert reports: Deadline to disclose rebuttal class Nov. 25, 2025 certification experts: Close of class certification expert Jan. 23, 2026 Discovery: Deadline to move for class certification and Jan. 30, 2026 file Daubert for rebuttal class certification experts: Class Certification Hearing: April 30, 2026 Deadline for Parties to file joint May 7, 2026 CMC statement: Roblox Corporation is an American video game developer based in San Mateo, California. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Iu2YBh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Andre Mura, Esq. Jacob Seidman, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com jms@classlawgroup.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Caitlin Munley, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com cmunley@cooley.com - and - Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Jacquie P. Andreano, Esq. Sonja n. Riley-swanbeck, Esq. KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com jandreano@keker.com SRiley-Swanbeck@keker.com ROCKETREACH LLC: McClure Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Kelli McClure, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCKETREACH LLC, Case No. 25-2-11221-7 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., April 10, 2025), is brought for violations of the Colorado's "Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA") against Defendant and to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages from Defendant. On May 27, 2005, former Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law HB05-1288, which amended the PTFA to prohibit commercially listing a cell phone number in a directory, without permission Despite this abundantly clear proscription, Defendant has listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in its for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendant profits handsomely from its unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, it does so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendant in its directory without affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listing. The Defendant is a data broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com RVB INVESTMENT: Burns Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Skyler Burns, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RVB INVESTMENT GROUP LLC d/b/a LIGHTRX AND LIGHTRX FACE & BODY and RVB VIRGINIA, LLC d/b/a LIGHTRX FACE & BODY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00324 (E.D. Va., April 29, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), and related claims. The Plaintiff contends Defendants have violated and continue to violate the FLSA and VOWA by having the following policy and practice: Not including bonuses, commissions, or other forms of incentive pay in calculating overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees (the "Overtime Rate Policy"). This policy and practice of Defendant resulted and results in Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime wages than they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA. The Defendants' policies and/or practices comprising the alleged violations are ongoing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Virginia as a Laser Technician from July 2024 to November 15, 2024. The Defendants operate medial spas that provide aesthetic services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 218-3133 Fax: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: zev@butlercurwood.com RW GARCIA: Melendez Class Action Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYRNA MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. R.W. GARCIA CO. INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09500-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jeannette Vargas entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brought this action in New York Supreme Court against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and for common law fraud. The Plaintiff purports to represent a putative class of "all persons in New York who purchased the Products in New York during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged." On Dec. 12, 2024, the Defendant removed this action to federal court. RW Garcia manufactures, labels, markets, packages, distributes, and sells different types of crackers. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VBnEA1 at no extra charge.[CC] SCOOT EDUCATION: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCOOT EDUCATION INC., et al. The case is styled as Jasmine Renee Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCOOT EDUCATION INC., TEACHSTART CORP., Case No. 25STCV10880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Scoot Education -- https://scoot.education/ -- is a Recruiting company that specialises in helping substitute teachers find great schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law SHENZHEN SMOORE: Conspires to Fix Vapes' Prices, Summit Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMIT INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN SMOORE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; JUPITER RESEARCH LLC; GREENLANE HOLDINGS, LLC; 3WIN CORP.; and CB SOLUTIONS d/b/a CANNA BRAND SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03431 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a continuing horizontal contract, combination and conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce by artificially reducing or eliminating competition for the pricing of closed cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components ("Vapes") directly sold to purchasers in the United States and its territories. Specifically, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. ("Smoore") and each of its authorized distributors entered into written and signed agreements to (a) not charge their customers below minimum prices agreed to by all of the Defendants and (b) not compete for other Defendants' (including Smoore's) customers. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class paid more for Smoore's Vapes than they would have absent the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, says the suit. Summit Industrial Solutions LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California. Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co. Ltd. is a producer of closed cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components based in China. Jupiter Research LLC is a distributor based in Arizona. Greenlane Holdings, LLC is a distributor based in Florida. 3Win Corp. is a distributor doing business in Arizona. CB Solutions, doing business as Canna Brand Solutions, is a distributor based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com SLICE OF ITALY: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. Slice of Italy Pizzeria-Rock Hill Inc., A et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-03683 (D.S.C., Filed June 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Cameron Mcgowan Currie entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply to motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Slice of Italy serves Italian Food, also specializing in cakes.[CC] STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Suit Alleging Trafficking, Slavery in Brazil ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE I, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JANE DOE I, as guardian of her minor son JOHN DOE I; JOHN DOE II, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JOHN DOE III, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JOHN DOE IV, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JOHN DOE V, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JOHN DOE VI, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; JOHN DOE VII, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members; and JOHN DOE VIII, Individually and on behalf of Proposed Class Members, Plaintiffs v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01261 (D.D.C., April 23, 2025) brings claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act(TVPRA) seeking redress for injuries suffered by Plaintiffs from being trafficked and forced to work on Starbucks supplying coffee plantations that are members of Cooxupe, a cooperative that is made up of member plantations and operates as a single entity that is a Tier 1 supplier to Starbucks. The Plaintiffs in this case, John Doe I, as a minor child represented herein by his mother, Jane Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III, John Doe IV, John Doe V, John Doe VI, John Doe VII, and John Doe VIII, were all trafficked by organized and illegal labor brokers called "Gatos." According to the complaint, Starbucks' profits are enhanced by the low wages and miserable conditions forced upon Plaintiffs and thousands of other coffee workers in the class. As the Brazilian Ministry of Labor has found with respect to the Plaintiffs, these workers endure "slavery-like conditions" and live in squalor while, in sharp contrast, Starbucks is thriving based largely on its ill-gotten gains, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring their claims against Starbucks in the United States because such claims cannot be maintained in their home country of Brazil. There is currently no law in Brazil whereby Plaintiffs can seek civil damages for their injuries against the parent company of Starbucks empire, Starbucks Corp. Further, the Plaintiffs bring their claims in the United States, as the U.S. has provided a forum for such human rights lawsuits with the passage of the TVPRA, which specifically provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction. In addition, the Plaintiffs have concerns about whether they will face violent retaliation against themselves and their families by the Gatos who illegally trafficked them to work on coffee plantations, the owners of farms on which they were forced to work under slavery-like conditions, and by those who gather and provide harvested coffee to Cooxupe, who by virtue of the "venture" between Cooxupe and Starbucks described herein, are also employees and/or agents of Starbucks, says the suit. Starbucks Coffee Company is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq. Salwa Ahmad, Esq. INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 621 Maryland Ave NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 543-5811 E-mail: tc@iradvocates.org SUR LA TABLE: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $550,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Sur La Table agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information for $550,000. The Sur La Table class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data incident notice from Sur La Table on or around May 24, 2023. The settlement also benefits a subclass of the same individuals who resided in California. During the Sur La Table data breach, hackers reportedly gained access to the company's computer systems and stole sensitive consumer information, including Social Security numbers, insurance data and more. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Sur La Table could have prevented the breach with reasonable cybersecurity measures, but instead stored consumer information in an unsecure environment and failed to monitor its systems for potential threats. Sur La Table is a kitchenware retailer that sells cookware, bakeware, kitchen tools, tableware and cooking classes. Sur La Table hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Sur La Table class action settlement, class members can receive up to $4,000 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This reimbursement covers unreimbursed fraud and identity theft costs, professional fees, credit repair services, credit monitoring costs and other expenses. Alternatively, class members may receive a pro rata cash payment from the settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed. No pro rata payment estimates are available at this time. California subclass members can claim a statutory payment of up to $100 in addition to any reimbursement or pro rata payment they receive. All class members are eligible for two years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 5, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Sur La Table data breach settlement is scheduled for Aug. 27, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 7, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notice from Sur La Table concerning the March 2023 incident. Potential Award Up to $4,000 out-of-pocket expenses or pro rata cash payment. $100 for California sub-class members. Credit monitoring and insurance. Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, professional letters, IRS letters, tax forms, financial documents and other documentation of out-of-pocket expenses. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/07/2025 Case Name Baker, et al. v. SLT Lending SPV Inc. d/b/a Sur La Table, Case No. 2:23-cv-00190-GSL-AZ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana Final Hearing 08/27/2025 Settlement Website SLTDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator SLT Lending SPV d/b/a Sur La Table Data Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 (855) 511-4099 Class Counsel M. Anderson Berry CLAYEO C. ARNOLD APC Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Tyler Bean Mason Barney SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Defense Counsel Christopher A. Wiech Bonnie Keane Del Gobbo BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] TARGET CORP: Sauces' No Artificial Flavor Ads "False," Wright Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LATONYA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02162-CBA-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Good & Gather pasta sauces. The Defendant labels the products with "No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives" claim, but the products contain citric acid, a known artificial preservative commonly used in food products. Had the Plaintiff known the truth, she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. Target Corporation is a retailer based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com TEACHERS HEALTH: Bid to Amend Class Definition Extended to June 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA GOODSELL, SHERI DEBARTOLO, MICHELLE REILLY, ANNETTE ANAS, and PAULA KEVISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, MEDSOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC dba WELLHEALTH QUALITY CARE, HEALTHCARE PARTNERS NEVADA, LLC, VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE, LLC fka VBH PARTNERS fka VALUE BASED HEALTHCARE PARTNERS fka VBH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01510-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: Deadline Item New Deadline Dispositive Motions June 5, 2025 Motion to Amend Class Definition and June 5, 2025 Certification The parties' proposed stipulated briefing schedule is also approved. The Oppositions to Motions will be due on or before June 26, 2025, and the Replies will be due on or before July 10, 2025. Teachers Health is a self-funded health trust which provides medical, dental and vision benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2KGyk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW APC 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 - and - Jack C. Juan, Esq. HAYES WAKAYAMA JUAN 5798 S Durango Drive, Ste l 05 Las Vegas, NV 89113 The Defendants are represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Paul Cotsonis, Esq. Bradley Combs, Esq. REESE RING VEL TO, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 TESLA INC: Opposition to Bid for Class Cert. Extended to June 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation), Case No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order regarding the Defendants' administrative motion to extend case deadlines: Current Date Modified Date Motion for Class Certification May 6, 2025 Unchanged and expert disclosures and reports relating to class certification: Case Management Conference: May 28, 2025 Vacated and to be reset after the Class Certification hearing. Opposition to Motion for Class June 3, 2025 June 17, 2025 Certification and disclosures of rebuttal expert witnesses and expert reports relating to class certification: Reply in support of Motion for July 1, 2025 July 22, 2025 Class Certification: Motion for Class Certification Apr. 29, 2025 Aug. 12, 2025 at 10:00 AM Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EE8Edo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank M. Pitre, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Julie L. Fieber, Esq. Makena A. Kershaw, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com jfieber@cpmlegal.com mkershaw@cpmlegal.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com nwoltering@bottinilaw.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Jeremy Robinson, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com jrobinson@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David C. Marcus, Esq. Alan Schoenfeld, Esq. Allison Bingxue Que, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-5312 E-mail: david.marcus@wilmerhale.com alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com allison.que@wilmerhale.com TRANS UNION: Agrees to Settle Credit Report Class Suit for $23MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Trans Union has agreed to pay a $23 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the credit reporting agency unlawfully failed to investigate hard inquiry disputes or remove the challenged inquiries from consumers' credit files. The court-approved website for the Trans Union class action settlement can be found at TransUnionDisputeClassAction.com. The settlement, which received preliminary court approval on February 24, 2025, covers a class of approximately 485,000 residents of the United States and its territories to whom Trans Union sent a "502 letter" in response to a written dispute of a credit inquiry between December 5, 2016 and January 31, 2025. A description of the 502 letters can be found in the FAQ section of the official settlement website. According to the Trans Union class action settlement website, class members do not have to do anything to receive a cash payout from the deal. Trans Union settlement payments, which are estimated to be approximately $20 to $30, will be mailed automatically to each consumer's address on file with the credit reporting agency, the site says. Those who would like to update their address can do so on this page. Class members who experienced damages as a result of Trans Union's alleged misconduct can submit a claim form to receive a higher payout amount, expected to be up to $160. This payment is in addition to the automatic cash payment, the settlement agreement relays. All cash payment amounts will depend on how many class members submit a claim attesting to damages, the website notes. Consumers attesting to damages must file a Trans Union settlement claim form by June 24, 2025. Class members who prefer to file a claim form by mail can request a paper copy from the settlement administrator, court documents share. As part of the deal, Trans Union has also agreed to change how it handles disputes and challenges of hard inquiries, the settlement agreement states. It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing scheduled for July 21, 2025 in Philadelphia. Settlement payouts will be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved. The Trans Union class action lawsuit was filed in December 2018 by a Pennsylvania resident who claimed that after he submitted a dispute to the credit reporting agency regarding an allegedly impermissible hard inquiry, Trans Union neither contacted the company responsible for pulling the man's credit report nor removed the disputed inquiry from his file. By failing to do so, the credit bureau violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the class action suit contended. [GN] TURQUOISE HILL: Oral Argument on Class Cert Set for June 25 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation , Case No. 1:20-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 14, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order setting oral argument hearing from parties regarding the pending motion for class certification on June 25, 2025. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange.[CC] TWITTER INC: Strifling Can File Certain Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file Exhibits 1-3 and 20-35 to their motion for class certification under seal, and to redact portions of the motion which refer to information contained in these exhibits. The Motion for Class Certification includes testimony from arbitrations, as well as cites to arbitration awards, that the Plaintiffs' counsel have obtained on behalf of former Twitter employees who brought claims against Twitter in arbitration. Because Twitter takes the position that the arbitrations are confidential, the Plaintiffs have filed the documents under seal. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48I5lk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com TWITTER INC: Strifling Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No. 4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on June 12, 2025, will move the Court for Class Certification. Specifically, the Plaintiffs will move the Court to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. 23(b)(3) that includes all women who were notified of their layoff by Twitter on Nov. 4, 2022. The Plaintiffs bring claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e, et seq., and (for employees who worked in California) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YbDhCp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com UB HOUSE LLC: Seerag Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UB House LLC, et al. The case is styled as Paul Seerag, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UB House LLC, UB Rental LLC, Cornerstone Heights, LLC, Elliot Browar, Dean J. Segal, Marlon Browar, Case No. 2:25-cv-02402-EK-ST (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. UB Property LLC is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes operating nonresidential buildings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Winston Horatio Jennings, Jr., Esq. 214-11 Northern Blvd. 11361, Ste 2, Fl 2 Bayside, NY 11361 Phone: (917) 692-9790 Email: jenningslaws@gmail.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dave Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; Does 1-100, and Each of Them, Case No. 25STCV09014 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03842. The Plaintiff also seeks "injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains" and "full restitution of all monies wrongfully acquired by Defendant by means of such unfair and unlawful conduct."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Kim, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 Phone: 213-576-1000 Email: jonathan.kim@alston.com - and - David B. Carpenter, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 404-881-7000 Email: david.carpenter@alston.com UNITED SEATING: Peffley Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jason A. Peffley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Seating and Mobility, LLC doing business as: Numotion, Case No. 25CV-54509 was removed from the Williamson County Chancery Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00482 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. United Seating and Mobility, LLC doing business as Numotion -- https://www.numotion.com/ -- is the nation's leading provider of Complex Rehab Technology (CRT) with an array of mobility solutions and medical supplies for adults and pediatrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Marc H. Edelson EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Miles M. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY 223 Rosa L Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: mschiller@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Keeley O. Cronin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (DENVER OFFICE) 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com kcronin@bakerlaw.com - and - E. Todd Presnell, Esq. Kimberly Michelle Ingram-Hogan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP (NASHVILLE, TN OFFICE) 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-2355 Email: tpresnell@bradley.com kingram@bradley.com UNITED STATES: Faces Ali Class Suit Over Foreign Students' Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- K ALI, ZHIYUAN BAO, OM SACHIN BAMANE, RANA FAIZ, FEIYANG HONG, JEEVAN PRAKASH JANKAR, XUSHENG JI, HONGJIANG LI, YEFAN LI, FANJUN LIN, BAOLONG LIU, LIU JIABIN. JIAPENG XU, LIANG YAN, QIAN YANG, ZIYU YI, XINY ZHOU, JIADONG ZHU, SHIHAO CHEN, YUJIE CAI, SHIRUI MA, KAICHAO SHANG, JINGBO CHENG, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, an agency of the United States, and STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR, PROGRAM, an agency of the United States, Case No. 1:25-cv-01151-CJN (D.D.C., April 16, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendants to hold unlawful and set aside their termination of Plaintiffs' foreign student (F-1) status, and the purported termination of their employment authorization. The Plaintiffs are each noncitizen of the United States, lawfully admitted to the United States in F-1 nonimmigrant status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1011(a)(15)(F) and currently in various locations throughout the country, either attending schools, or in a period of post completion practical training employment authorization, issued to them based upon their F-1 status. The United States Department Of Homeland Security is an agency of the United States with ultimate authority to manage schools, nonimmigrant students in the F and M visa classifications and their dependents. https://www.ice.gov/sevis The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is the Department of Homeland Security's program that administers the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. It claims to ensure that government agencies have essential data related to nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors to preserve national security. SEVP provides approval and oversight to schools authorized to enroll F and M nonimmigrant students and to give guidance to both schools and students about the requirements for maintaining their status. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security with responsibility for and authority over the actions of the SEVP, inasmuch as SEVP is a part of it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Piston, Esq. ]37-47 73Rd St, Ste 214 Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (646) 876-3772 Facsimile: (206) 770-6350 E-mail: Michaelpiston4@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Int'l Students Sue Over Termination of SEVIS Records ------------------------------------------------------------------- John A. Roe, John B. Roe, John C. Roe, John D. Roe, Jane E. Roe, Jane F. Roe, Jane G. Roe, Jane H. Roe, and Jane I. Roe, proceeding pseudonymously on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Rachel Canty, Deputy Assistant Director of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Shonnie R. Lyon, or his successor, Director of the Office of Biometrics Identity Management, and the Office of Biometrics Identity Management, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00743 (W.D. Wash., April 23, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Administrative Procedure Act due to sudden termination of Plaintiffs' Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records. The Plaintiffs are international students lawfully studying in the United States who have had their SEVIS record terminated by the Defendants, based solely on a database hit indicating that they have been identified in a law enforcement or criminal information data system, often as a result of fingerprinting. The statute, regulations and U.S. Constitution place limits on the situations under which Defendants may terminate a student's SEVIS records, and merely having been identified in a law enforcement or criminal information data system is not among the lawful bases for such termination. Due to the significant stigma in the United States and their home countries arising from having their student status terminated based on alleged criminal misconduct, the Plaintiffs seek to proceed in this action under pseudonyms. Plaintiffs Roe A-G seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals throughout the United States who have had their SEVIS records unlawfully terminated by Defendants prior to the completion of their student program, as follows: All noncitizens who are, were, or will be present in the United States in F-1 status, who are, were, or will be maintaining their F-1 status, but who had or will have their SEVIS record terminated by Defendants on or after March 15, 2025, and who do not have a conviction for a crime of violence for which a sentence of more than one year imprisonment may be imposed. Plaintiffs Roe H and I seek to represent a class of similarly situated individuals throughout the United States who have had their SEVIS records unlawfully terminated by Defendants subsequent to the completion of their student program during their authorized Post-Completion Optional Practical Training, as follows: All noncitizens who are, were or will be present in the United States in F-1 status and subsequently obtained Optional Practical Training as part of their F-1 program, who are, were, or will be maintaining their F-1 status, but who had or will have their SEVIS record terminated by the Defendants on or after March 15, 2025, and who do not have a conviction for a crime of violence for which a sentence of one year or more may be imposed. Defendant Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Defendant Department of Homeland Security is a federal cabinet-level department responsible for immigration enforcement and oversight, including the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Esq. Whitney C. Wootton, Esq. OPEN SKY LAW, PLLC 20415 72nd Ave S., Suite 110 Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (206) 962-5052 Facsimile: (206) 681-9663 E-mail: devin@opensky.law whitney@opensky.law - and - Jay Gairson, Esq. GAIRSON LAW, LLC 4606 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S. Seattle, WA 98108 Telephone: (206) 357-4218 E-mail: jay@gairson.com US CLAIMS: Vactor Sues Over Unprotected Clients' Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY VACTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US CLAIMS CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a US CLAIMS, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-60739 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about January 7, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. US Claims Capital, LLC, doing business as US Claims, is a national litigation funding company based in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com VANDERBILT MORTGAGE: Pushes Borrowers Into Unaffordable Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER STOCKTON AND TRACY TAYLOR on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00176 (E.D. Tenn., April 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for originating manufactured-home-purchase loans without making a reasonable, good-faith determination that their borrowers, including Plaintiffs, would have a reasonable ability to repay those loans, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act and its implementing Regulation Z. According to the complaint, Vanderbilt purports to provide access to affordable housing for financially vulnerable population in the U.S. Since 2014, Vanderbilt's underwriting process has ignored clear and obvious red flags that certain consumers would not be able to repay their loans according to their terms. Vanderbilt used implausible estimates of monthly expenses that meaningfully underestimated what consumers would need in order to keep food on the table and meet other living expenses after paying their monthly mortgage payments and debt obligations. Additionally, Vanderbilt ignored clear indicators that its target consumers were already struggling to satisfy their existing debt obligations and lacked assets to repay these debts. These indicators included consumer credit reports that showed one or more debts that had already been sent to collection. Predictably, many of these consumers experienced late fees and penalties when their loans became delinquent. When those delinquent loans went into default, the affected consumers lost their homes through repossession or foreclosure, says the suit. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., a subsidiary of Clayton Homes, Inc., is a manufactured-home financing company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORELLI, PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (972) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborellli.com VOLUME SERVICES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volume Services, Inc. The case is styled as Maria C. Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Volume Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV12655 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Centerplate, operates entertainment and convention venues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com - and - Maria C. Garcia, Esq. LEONE ALBERTS & DUUS 1390 Willow Pass Rd., Ste. 700 Concord, CA 94520-7913 Phone: 925-974-8600 Fax: 925-974-8601 Email: cgarcia@leonealberts.com WINCUP INC: Heavey Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Heavey, an Individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated and the general public v. WINCUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07668 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01099-GPC-KSC. In the Complaint, Heavey alleges that certain advertisements of WinCup concerning its foam products are "false, deceptive, and/or misleading" and constitute "unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices". Heavey asserts claims against WinCup on behalf of himself and "all similarly situated California citizens" for violations of California Business & Professions Code and violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nathan Dooley, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-892-7933 Fax: 213-892-7999 Email: ndooley@cozen.com YALE NEW: Wise Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00615 (D. Conn., April 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 8, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Yale New Haven Health System is a healthcare enterprise with its principal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Israel David, Esq. Adam. M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - David M. Bernard, Esq. Margaret M. Donovan, Esq. KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, PC 350 Fairfield Ave., Suite 501 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 336-4421 Facsimile: (203) 368-3244 Email: dbernard@koskoff.com mdonovan@koskoff.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 350 Cases as of March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2025, there were 350 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 309 cases as of December 31, 2024. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, 53 new cases were filed and 12 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements in the period presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such period's results of operations. During the three months ended March 31, 2024, one case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial. Subsequently, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in that case. However, during the three months ended September 30, 2024, an appellate court granted the Company's request to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied in February 2025. Plaintiffs are now appealing the jury's verdict and judgment in favor of the Company." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i5i0np ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Receives 698 New Exposure Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2025, has received 698 new claims and resolved 674 claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the overall number of outstanding asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent years, the number of new claims may fluctuate or increase between periods, and there can be no assurance that total outstanding claims will continue to decline, or that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ulxQKN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Reports $1.28BB Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal injury claims related to the Bendix Friction Materials business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Honeywell International states, "Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. "As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company has reported total asbestos-related liabilities of $1,283 million and $1,325 million, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIIZSO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Still Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC, beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CECO Environmental states, "While the Company divested of its fluid handling business (also known as its Global Pump Solutions business) in the first quarter of 2025, as discussed in Note 16, the Company retained historical asbestos liabilities and the related legacy insurance policies. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. As of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the related amount recorded within "Accrued expenses" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets was $0.2 million. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https: https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fOPEG1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Faces Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by its subsidiary, BMI Oldco Inc. (f/k/a Barretts Minerals Inc.), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Minerals Technologies states, "In the first quarter of 2025, the Company recorded a provision to establish a reserve of $215 million for estimated costs to fund a trust to resolve all current and future talc-related claims for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by the Company's subsidiary BMI Oldco Inc. (f/k/a Barretts Minerals Inc.) ("Oldco") as well as fund the bankruptcy of the Company's subsidiaries, Oldco and Barretts Ventures Texas LLC ("BVT" and together with Oldco, the "Chapter 11 Debtors"), and related litigation costs. In the first quarter, the Company also initiated a cost savings program and recorded a charge of $5.5 million for severance and other related costs. Additionally, included in income (loss) from operations for the first quarter of 2025 and 2024 was $2.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively of litigation expenses incurred in connection with the bankruptcy of Oldco." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1R9cj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 357 PI Lawsuits as of March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2025, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 357 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September 2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity for which installments began in December 2024. Together with a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qZ7MJU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 5,069 Pending Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has reported 5,069 claims pending individual claimants at March 31, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Union Carbide states, "Each quarter, the Corporation reviews asbestos-related claims filed, settled and dismissed, as well as average settlement and resolution costs by disease category. The Corporation also considers additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of pending claims, trial experience of the Corporation and other asbestos defendants, current spending for defense and processing costs, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, trends in the tort system, and their respective effects on expected future resolution costs. UCC management considers these factors in conjunction with the most recent actuarial study and determines whether a change in the estimate is warranted. Based on the Corporation's review of 2025 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2025. "The Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $767 million at March 31, 2025 ($791 million at December 31, 2024). At March 31, 2025, approximately 25 percent of the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 75 percent related to future claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bud0EO ********* 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 ***