250512.mbx

250512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 94 Headlines A & M ROSENTHAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says ALABAMA STATE BAR: Barber Sues Over Retaliatory Disciplinary Action ALABAMA: Plaintiffs File Renewed Bid for Class Certification ALASKA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Health Care ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: EmblemHealth Files Antitrust Class Suit ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Cancels May 16 Class Cert Hearing AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Entered in De Coster ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Overby FLSA Suit APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over iPhone 16 AI Capabilities ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Tapia Says ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Casanova Alleges ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal AVALON GLOBOCARE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With YOOV Group AXIS HOSPITALITY: Paz Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Seeks Leave to File Redacted Class Cert Bid BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Suit Seeks to Certify Class BETTER DEBT: Austin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid BLUE SHIELD: Julian Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI BLUE SHIELD: Sohrabnejad Sues Over Data Breach BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 29, 2026 BRAND NAME: Cortez Wins Bid for Default Judgment BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2026 CANADA: Court Approves in Part '60s Scoop Class Action Lawsuit CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Underfunded Housing on Reserves CDK GLOBAL: $630MM Settlement Deal in Loop Suit Gets Initial Nod CENTURY ALUMINUM: Settlement in McDaniel Suit Gets Initial OK CEREVEL THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 COLOR STREET: Fields Suit Removed to C.D. California CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Royalties Suit CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class COPART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Cohen Suit to 9th Circuit CPOD: Seeks More Time to File Counterclaim Response CREATIVE FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Says DAN AND DAVE: Wills Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website DANIEL DRISCOLL: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline DICK'S SPORTING: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by May 14 ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification FACEBOOK INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 19 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $650,000 FORD MOTOR: Dolan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Goston Seeks Leave to File FAC GEORGIA: Cappelletti Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid GERRITSEN AVENUE: Cherashniy Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Clifford Appointed as Mediator in Rivera Suit GLOBAL TEL LINK: Agrees to Settle Excess Charges Class Action GO WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Unpaid Commissions' Suit for $13MM GOOGLE LLC: Pre-Trial Order Entered In Antitrust Class Suit HOLOSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Potential Battery Ingestion Hazard HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed JAMES UTHMEIER: Bid for Provisional Class Cert Granted in Part JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action for $83.5MM JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Seeks More Time to File Class Certification JM SMUCKER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jeruchim Due June 5 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Court Consolidates Class Actions KENVUE INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions KNOT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Practices KROGER CO: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Womick Suit LAZ PARKING: Harris Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit LEXINGTON BLUE: Fails to Provide Restoration Services, Suit Says LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal LIVE NATION: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Gets Court Partial OK LIVE NATION: Class Settlement in Donley Gets Initial Approval LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 22, 2026 LORETTO HEALTH: Aderohunmu Class Cert Filing Extended to July 11 MAC COSMETICS: Dalton Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website MAGNUS HOLDINGS: Roofers Local 149 Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MANZANA LLC: Class Certification Bid in Zavala Due Jan. 16, 2026 MARTECH STACK: Byrnside Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida MCLANE CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in McGowan Continued to July 7 MDL 3149: A.A. v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Arede v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Baker v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MDL 3149: Brown v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California MEDICAL EXPRESS: Cuevas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Jamil Suit Seeks Class Certification MERCEDES-BENZ: Jamil Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Class Suit MERRILL LYNCH: Milligan Appeals Summ. Judgment Ruling in ERISA Suit MOONLIGHT PACKING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MV FOODS: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought NASCO INDUSTRIAL: Cyphers Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, AWHA NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Sets Class Certification Briefing Schedule NATIONAL RAILROAD: Chappelle Seeks Initial OK of $1.2MM Settlement NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Filing in Manley Due Feb. 6, 2026 NCAA: Court Junks Chalmers Amended Complaint w/ Prejudice NEW YORK, NY: Satchell Loses Bid for Class Certification NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Clouse Suit Alleges OPEN LENDING: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Tex. OREGON: Swindler Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 18, 2025 PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Colby TILA Class Suit Over Servicing Errors POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: J.I. Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Zarif Suit Transferred to S.D. California RAUL LABRADOR: Court Certifies Provisional Classes RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Venet Suit Removed to N.D. California RITUAL ZERO PROOF: Cantore Sues Over Deceptive Junk Fees SHADE STORE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal SOMNIA INC: Class Settlement in Chabak Suit Gets Final Nod STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Shojaei Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STRYKER CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Graham Due April 6, 2026 SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Renewed Bid to Seal Docs Tossed w/o Prejudice TRAILS CAROLINA: Residential Program "Misleading," Suit Says TURNER INTEGRITY: Blazio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation UNILEVER UNITED: Sued Over Misleading "Natural" Product Labels UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Provisional Class in UFW Suit UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Suit Over 401(K) Misallocation UNKNOWN BATHS: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Alleges VIRTUSA CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sugg Extended to June 25 VISION OF HOPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response VITOL INC: Settlement Class Reps Gets $5K Each VSL PHARMA: Starr Wins Class Cert Bid WEBER TREE: Escalona Must File Status Update by May 12 WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Investor Class in SEB Lawsuit WELLS FARGO: Parties Seeks to Stay Flores Action YA NETWORK: Initial Standing Order Entered In Sabo Class Suit ZILLOW INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Due April 6, 2026 ********* A & M ROSENTHAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A & M ROSENTHAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02446 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.dessy.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 2, 2024 to access the Defendant’' Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase flats (Talaria Premium Folding Flats). The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because she was looking for classy footwear for summer wear. She wanted to find a store that offers a variety of footwear and accessories for various occasions, asserts the suit. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 ALABAMA STATE BAR: Barber Sues Over Retaliatory Disciplinary Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALABAMA STATE BAR and Terri Bozeman Lovell, individually and in her official capacity as executive director; Roman Shaul, individually and in his official capacity as General Counsel; Mark Moody individually and in his official capacity as Assistant General Counsel and James Rebarchak in his capacity as hearing officer, Alabama State Bar, Case No. 2:25-cv-00671-JHE (N.D. Ala., May 1, 2025), is brought arising from a systematic pattern of selective prosecution and retaliatory disciplinary action against attorneys who expose judicial misconduct and fraud in the Alabama court system. The Defendants have engaged in a coordinated campaign designed to silence whistle blowers through professional discipline, adverse rulings, and financial harm, while simultaneously declining to investigate or discipline favored attorneys who engage in actual misconduct. The Alabama State Bar has engaged in discriminatory enforcement of ethical rules with known misstatement of facts against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated attorneys while deliberately ignoring actual misconduct by favored attorneys whose complaints are dismissed. This disparate treatment constitutes a clear violation of constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, due process, and the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in the State of Alabama and a resident of St Clair County, Alabama. Alabama State Bar is the regulatory agency responsible for attorney discipline in Alabama whose executive director is Terri Bozeman Lovell.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ALABAMA: Plaintiffs File Renewed Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C., a minor, by JENNY CARROLL, his Next Friend; F.F., a minor, by CHRISTINE FREEMAN, her Next Friend; and G.G., a minor, by CHRISTINE FREEMAN, her Next Friend; v. NANCY T. BUCKNER, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, in her official capacity, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and certifying a class defined as: "Children who are adjudicated dependent under Ala. Code section 12-15- 314(a)(3), and who have, or have a record of, a mental health impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and under Rule 23(g), appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the certified class. The Plaintiffs initially filed their Motion for Class Certification on March 8, 2024. Before the Court issued a decision on Plaintiffs' motion, the case was stayed on Sept. 4, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the Court lifted the stay and denied the pending Motion for Class Certification with leave to refile, and subsequently set a deadline for the renewed class certification motion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=stKQyg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lindsey S. Frye, Esq. Samantha M. Bartosz, Esq. Katrina Braun, Esq. Valerie Achille, Esq. Micaela Ann Heery-Hyatt, Esq. Jessica Zou, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 E-mail: lfrye@childrensrights.org sbartosz@childrensrights.org kbraun@childrensrights.org vachille@childrensrights.org mheeryhyatt@childrensrights.org jzou@childrensrights.org - and - Andrea J. Mixson, Esq. Larry Canada, Esq. ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM 2008 12th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 E-mail: amixson@adap.ua.edu lcanada@adap.ua.edu - and - Michael Tafelski, Esq. Claire Sherburne, Esq. Sophia Mire Hill, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (888) 414-7752 E-mail: michael.tafelski@splcenter.org claire.sherburne@splcenter.org sophia.mire@splcenter.org ALASKA: DOC Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Health Care ---------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, with the ACLU National Prison Project, filed a class action lawsuit against the Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) challenging DOC's inadequate, dangerous, and inhumane health care system. The federal court lawsuit, brought on behalf of incarcerated Alaskans, contends that the state's failure to provide adequate health care is a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and has resulted in needless suffering, decline, and death. A years-long investigation into the inadequate physical, dental, and mental health care for thousands of incarcerated Alaskans demonstrates a critical need to fix DOC's health care system immediately. "Thousands of Alaskans depend on DOC to take care of their most basic and essential health care needs. They have no other option once they are detained. But the care they're receiving, if they receive it, often comes too late, and is woefully inadequate," said Megan Edge, Prison Project Director for the ACLU of Alaska. "State officials have known for years about these unconstitutional, inhumane, and cruel conditions, but have failed to make meaningful changes. We are hopeful that the courts will mandate an overhaul of DOC's medical processes. If they don't, Alaskans will continue to suffer and die needlessly." According to DOC, the cost of care for someone housed in an Alaska state jail or prison is $202 per day. However, this does not include medical care for chronic diseases, end-of-life, or emergency care. At the beginning of 2025, Alaska Governor Michael Dunleavy announced a proposed state budget that included $481 million for the DOC. DOC's budget has continued to grow, without safer conditions or improved health care. "When it comes to health care, Alaska's prisons showcase some of the worst conditions of confinement that we've seen anywhere in the country," said Nancy Rosenbloom, Senior Litigation Advisor at the ACLU's National Prison Project. "The Alaskans who we represent in this lawsuit have been subject to an egregious lack of medical care that is heartbreaking, inhumane, and violates their constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." Examples of the health care inadequacies include the following: -- Untreated diabetes led to a coma and time in the ICU. In July 2023, an incarcerated diabetic woman complained of severe low back pain and was diagnosed with muscle spasms. Her pain did not improve and became so excruciating that she could not walk to receive medical attention, eat meals, or use the bathroom without the assistance of other incarcerated people. Medical staff did not check her blood sugar levels even while she remained in her cell, incapacitated by pain. Approximately one week later, an officer noted that the woman had fallen out of bed and was unresponsive. Upon being transferred to the emergency room, she was found to be in a diabetic coma, a life-threatening complication of poorly controlled diabetes. She spent 6 days in the intensive care unit before returning to prison. -- A diagnosed chronic illness progressed to pre-stages of colon cancer. An incarcerated man was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease in which abnormal reactions of the immune system cause inflammation and ulcers in the large intestine. Because of DOC's failure to treat his disease appropriately during a previous incarceration, he suffered enormous pain and discomfort, and the colitis progressed to the advanced pre-stages of colon cancer. -- Untreated cataracts led to near blindness and the inability to care for other health problems. An incarcerated man's cataracts worsened and advanced to the point where surgery was required. Because DOC failed to provide him with the needed procedure, his vision has become so impaired that he cannot clearly see the food on his plate or safely navigate the prison environment. Years after his diagnosis of bilateral "dense" cataracts and myopia (nearsightedness, with a visual acuity of 20/400 in both eyes), DOC has still failed to provide him surgery or eyeglasses. At the same time, he repeatedly asked the prison clinic for assistance, as he could not see well enough to care for his severe facial acne. He often bled from his face, at times soaking a napkin with blood. -- Untreated teeth lead to gross decay, oral wounds, and stitches. An incarcerated man suffered three fractured teeth, including one loose in the socket, and a knocked-out tooth. Despite requesting dental care in September 2021, he did not receive an appointment for four months, by which time he had pain and "gross decay." DOC dental staff extracted two teeth and the patient required sutures to repair wounds in his mouth caused by the fractured teeth cutting his lips. He experienced further dental problems that were not addressed, leading to severe pain and further loss of teeth. DOC has a de facto "extraction only" policy, often offering extraction as the only treatment option, even for teeth that could be saved. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: EmblemHealth Files Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Herron, writing for Big Molecule Watch, reports that on April 16, 2025, EmblemHealth, Inc. ("Emblem") filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Alexion Pharma International Operations Ltd. (collectively, "Alexion") alleging Alexion "violated antitrust law by monopolistic acts that unlawfully delayed the introduction of biosimilar competition for eculizumab." Enblem alleges that Alexion "defrauded a U.S. patent examiner" in order to "unlawfully procure[] a second set of five patents [following a first patent claiming eculizumab], once again claiming eculizumab, and with a expiration dates well into the future." SOLIRIS (eculizumab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody treatment approved to treat a range of immune disorders and blood diseases, including paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. Emblem alleges that "[s]tarting in 2007, Alexion sold eculizumab under the brand name Soliris with protection from competition under a 2002 issued composition patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,355,245 (the "'245 patent") [which] claims eculizumab, a biologic pharmaceutical comprising an anti-C5 antibody having a specified sequence of heavy and light chains." Emblem further alleges that "Alexion's 14-year grant of patent protected Soliris sales should have concluded after March of 2021 upon the expiration of its 2002 eculizumab patent," but that "in the years before that expiration, Alexion's senior management and scientists unlawfully procured a second set of five patents, once again claiming eculizumab." Emblem claims that Alexion "defrauded a U.S. patent examiner" by "concealing from the patent examiner many of Alexion's own pre-2007 publications that disclosed outright the exact sequence of eculizumab by providing a simple roadmap for its assembly" and " falsely represent[ing] that its own '245 patent failed to teach the eculizumab amino acid sequence." Emblem contends that, as a result of these alleged actions, "the PTO examiner incorrectly allowed claims in a set of five related patents—three in 2017 and two in 2020—that once again covered eculizumab and known methods of using it." Emblem alleges that "Alexion used its fraudulently acquired patents to extract settlements from its first would-be competitor and to delay its second would-be competitor with costly and prolonged litigation" resulting in "U.S. purchasers of eculizumab—one of the most expensive drugs in the world—hav[ing] paid supra-competitive prices for eculizumab due to Alexion's unlawful acts." Emblem's complaint includes six (6) counts: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief for "monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act"; (2) declaratory and injunctive relief for "attempted monopolization in violation of Section of the Sherman Act"; (3) "monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law"; (4) "attempted monopolization under state law"; (5) "violations of state consumer protection laws"; and (6) "unjust enrichment under state law." Emblem seeks certification of a class defined as "[a]ll end payors (including any assignees of such end payors) in the United States and its territories who purchased and/or paid all or part of the purchase price of Soliris from March 2022 until the anticompetitive effects of Alexion's conduct cease (the class period)." Stay tuned to Big Molecule Watch as we continue to monitor this antitrust litigation. [GN] ALLY FINANCIAL: Court Cancels May 16 Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL C. SHERIDAN, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00616 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order resetting the class certification hearing at a later date. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for May 16, 2025, is canceled. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. Ally provides various digital financial products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pxWakt at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Entered in De Coster -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: -- Amazon's deadline for its Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude Prof. Pathak's Testimony is May 9, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to re-note that motion for May 9, 2025. -- The deadline for filing (1) public versions of the parties' Daubert papers in De Coster, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3) should be set for June 6, 2025. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0WfFcs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann R. Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com Roseann.Romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Alicia Cobb, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Yotam Barkai, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com ybarkai@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Overby FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Thomas Overby, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On Apr. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On May 30, 2024, the Defendant filed a cross motion for decertification. On Mar. 27, 2025, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendant's cross-motion for decertification. The Plaintiffs were designated as the class representatives, and Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC and Butler Curwood PLC were authorized to serve as counsel for the class in this action. The appellate case is captioned Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Thomas Overby, Jr., Case No. 25-140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents THOMAS OVERBY, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Samantha Rachel Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 - and – Ashley Collette, Esq. SPIGGLE LAW FIRM 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22304 - and – Thomas James Eiler, Esq. Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. Robert Wesley Thayer Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 (919) 389-7470 Defendant-Petitioner ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC is represented by: Katherine Ignaffo Heise, Esq. Robert George Lian, Jr., Esq. Margaret O'Brien Rusconi, Esq. Benjamin Robert Saul, Esq. James Edward Tysse, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4358 (202) 887-4061 (202) 887-4571 APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over iPhone 16 AI Capabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Apple faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the tech heavyweight has misrepresented the artificial intelligence capabilities of the iPhone 16, tricking consumers into paying high prices for a device "virtually indistinguishable" from prior models. Apple in June 2024 launched a mass advertising campaign announcing that its new AI software, "Apple Intelligence," would debut alongside the release of the iPhone 16, the 35-page class action suit says. According to the case, the company said Apple Intelligence would unlock "exciting new capabilities" to make Apple devices more helpful, in particular by transforming the Siri virtual assistant feature into a "conversational personal assistant" that could retrieve and analyze data across applications and use that information to solve everyday problems. However, the filing charges that "Apple's promises were false," as Apple Intelligence did not come pre-installed on the iPhone 16 upon its September 2024 launch. Per the case, it was not until March 2025 that Apple "finally acknowledged" that the touted Apple Intelligence features "were nonfunctional" and would be rolled out "in the coming year." "Rather than take accountability for its false and misleading advertising, Apple has instead quietly removed advertisements featuring the Apple Intelligence features of the iPhone 16," the complaint relays. The case claims that many of the promised Apple Intelligence features, including a more conversational Siri, are still unavailable to iPhone 16 buyers, who paid between $799 and over $1,000 for the product. In fact, reports say the much-advertised version of Siri won't reach consumers until at least 2027, the complaint relays. Reporting also indicates that the tech giant's marketing for Apple Intelligence was "driven by what consumers want to see, and were willing to pay top-dollar for," rather than what Apple engineers were actually able to produce, the lawsuit says. The filing argues that Apple has charged consumers for an iPhone they would not have bought -- or wouldn't have paid as much for -- had they known the device would lack many of the much-advertised Apple Intelligence features, particularly a revamped Siri. The Apple iPhone 16 lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased an iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro or iPhone 16 Pro Max for purposes other than resale. [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Tapia Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE TAPIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:25-cv-00626 (E.D. Mo., May 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients for the second time in less than 8 months. The first data breach was a ransomware attack in May 2024, and second data breach that is the subject of the instant lawsuit was a cyberattack that occurred in December 2024 due to a vulnerability in third-party software used by Defendant’s business partner (the Data Breach). The Data Breach, like the May 2024 incident, resulted in the release of patients' Social Security numbers and sensitive health information, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information—which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Ascension collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant. Accordingly, the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ personally identifiable information and protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Plaintiff Jacqueline Tapia is a resident and citizen of Kokomo, Indiana. The Defendant is a Catholic health-system that "includes approximately 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of Columbia."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq.- Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Casanova Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISABELLA CASANOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:25-cv-00627 (E.D. Mo., May 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients for the second time in less than 8 months. Accordingly, the first data breach was a ransomware attack in May 2024, and second data breach that is the subject of the instant lawsuit was a cyberattack that occurred in December 2024 due to a vulnerability in third-party software used by Defendant’s business partner (the Data Breach). The Data Breach, like the May 2024 incident, resulted in the release of patients' Social Security numbers and sensitive health information. The Defendant is a Catholic health-system that "includes approximately 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of Columbia." The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Ascension collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients at Defendant. The Defendant is a Catholic health-system that "includes approximately 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers and 140 hospitals, serving communities in 19 states and the District of Columbia."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, Missouri 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Allowed Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malachi Mickelonis, Joseph Afilani, Jacob Alva-Melville, Micaiah, Flores, Matthew Gorka, Jared Hilliard, Charles Kirk, Yale Liebowitz, Jacob Mueller, Kevin Munoz, Colebie Niedermeier, Joshua Palmer, Bryce Phillips, Christopher Sousa, Rolando Vazquez, Adrian Villa, Brian Walsh, and Nicholas Yee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Aspyr Media, Inc.; and Does 1-5, Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' third application for leave to file under seal exhibits to the declaration of Raymond Y. Kim in support of reply in support of motion for class certification. Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HXuPHs at no extra charge.[CC] AVALON GLOBOCARE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With YOOV Group ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Avalon GloboCare Corp. (NASDAQ: ALBT), relating to the proposed merger with YOOV Group Holding Limited. Under the terms of the agreement, Avalon equity holders are expected to own between approximately 2.5% to 2.2% of the common stock of the combined company. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/avalon-globocare-corp-albt/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Endo, Inc. (OTC: NDOI), relating to the proposed merger with Mallinckrodt plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Endo shareholders will own 49.9% of the combined company on a pro forma basis. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/endo-inc-ndoi/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DNB), relating to the proposed merger with Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, Dun & Bradstreet shareholders will receive $9.15 in cash for each share of common stock they own. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dun-bradstreet-holdings-inc-dnb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ReShape Lifesciences Inc. (NASDAQ: RSLS), relating to the proposed merger with Vyome Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, ReShape and Vyome will combine in an all-stock transaction, with ReShape stockholders owning approximately 11.1% of the combined company. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/reshape-lifesciences-inc-rsls/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] AXIS HOSPITALITY: Paz Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA PERDOMO PAZ, ENRIQUE VILLAROEL, ERVIN ROMERO, and JONATHAN RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AXIS HOSPITALITY CONSTRUCTION, LLC; UPLAND HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC; VARGAS DEMO AND PAINT, LLC; RICARDO SABLON; JOSE VARGAS; MELVIN AGUILAR; and JORGE NUNEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01764-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a collective action for all existing named and opt-in Plaintiffs, pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). Axis Hospitality is a hotel renovation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=peNvIz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas M. Grimsley, Esq. Scott A. Fenton, Esq. Kristin L. Wedell, Esq. DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-7272 Facsimile: (888) 811-7144 E-mail: dgrimsley@dmclaw.com sfenton@dmclaw.com kwedell@dmclaw.com BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Seeks Leave to File Redacted Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kouyate v. Bai Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03993-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal redacted portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and to file under seal those exhibits in support thereof. Exhibit 12 is a manufacturing process flow chart that may constitute private information not available to competitors. Exhibit 15 is a series of email communications that includes competitive pricing information and includes other potentially sensitive information regarding chemical compositions. Because its appears on the face of Exhibits 12 and 15 that they constitute private, commercially and competitively sensitive information, Plaintiff requests leave to file these exhibits under seal. The Plaintiff also provisionally files a redacted version of the Memorandum in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, redacting information derived from exhibits designated confidential. Bai Brands produces beverages for health-conscious consumers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=de8zvx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1744 E-mail: tflynn@fmfpc.com BAI BRANDS: Kouyate Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOUSSA KOUYATE, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. BAI BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03993-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c): 1. Certifying a Class of: "All persons in New York who, at any time between May 23, 2021 and the time Class Notice is sent, purchased for personal or household use and not for resale or distribution, any Bai Water product containing erythritol and bearing the label statement, "No Artificial Sweeteners"." 2. Appointing Lana Zinger as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC as Class Counsel. Bai Brands produces beverages for health-conscious consumers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ThdzXJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN, PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jftizgerald@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com BETTER DEBT: Austin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATRICE AUSTIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01103-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter granting motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. On Mar. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing her Class Action Complaint. On April 9, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion to Strike, and a Motion to Bifurcate Discovery. On April 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint. On April 24, 2025, the Defendant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Better Debt specializes in providing debt relief services to individuals and households. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8N9qr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com BLUE SHIELD: Julian Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI ------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Julian, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for JOHN DOE, a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 25STCV10896 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's unauthorized collection and disclosure of its members' protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively "PII/PHI") through the implementation of tracking technologies on its website and patient portal. As a healthcare insurer, Blue Shield stores vast amounts of highly sensitive PII and PHI about its current and former members. This information was compromised when Blue Shield's improper configuration of Google Analytics allowed the collection and disclosure of members' PII and PHI to Google without their knowledge or consent (the "Data Breach"). In exchange for access to these business tools, website operators install Google's surveillance software on their website, including 'tracking pixels' ("Pixels") and third party 'cookies' that capture sensitive, personally identifiable information provided to the website operator by its website users. This sensitive information can include a unique identifier that Google uses to identify that user, regardless of what computer or phone is used to access the website. The tracking technologies can also capture and share other information like the specific webpages visited by a website user, items added to an online shopping cart by a website user, information entered into an online form by a website user, and the device characteristics of a website user's phone or computer. In essence, when website operators use Google Analytics, they choose to participate in Google's mass surveillance network and, in turn, benefit from Google's collection of user data at the expense of their customers' privacy. Between April 2021 and January 2024, Blue Shield's Google Analytics was configured in a way that allowed certain member data to be shared with Google's advertising product, Google Ads. On February 11, 2025, Blue Shield discovered this privacy breach but waited until April 4, 2025--nearly two months later—to begin notifying affected members. The unauthorized disclosure occurred because Blue Shield failed to adequately configure its analytics tools, failed to train its employees on proper data privacy practices, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect members' PII/PHI. In short, Blue Shield's failures placed members' sensitive information in a vulnerable position--rendering it accessible to unauthorized third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims. The Defendant is a health insurance provider with operations throughout California, providing healthcare coverage to millions of Californians.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Parker, Jr., Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95608 Phone: (916) 616-2936 Email: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Phone: 773-554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com BLUE SHIELD: Sohrabnejad Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- Sepideh Sohrabnejad, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 25CV118694 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 11, 2025), is brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing its patients' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Google LLC ("Google") and additional unknown persons. The Defendant's Tech Properties allows users to manage their health insurance plans by viewing coverage details, tracking claims, accessing digital ID cards, and searching for in-network providers. It also offers tools for scheduling and accessing telehealth services, viewing plan documents, and managing account settings. Members can use the site to find doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals, as well as access mental health resources and various wellness-related programs. Unbeknownst to individuals, and as recently admitted by Defendant in an email to its customers, Google Analytics code is embedded into the Blue Shield website. Through that embedded tracking technology, while Plaintiff and Class members were interacting with the Blue Shield website, Google, in real time, intercepted, eavesdropped upon, and collected Blue Shield's website users' sensitive information, including their protected health information. All of this happened without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice or consent. Stated another way, as Plaintiff and Class Members are using their various electronic devices to enter their personally identifiable medical information, including sensitive health information, Google simultaneously is intercepting their private data in real time while it is in transit by using the embedded Google Analytics code. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that ground alleges that Google uses the information shared by Blue Shield not only to provide analytics services but also to maintain and improve Google's own services, develop new analytics and marketing services, and measure the effectiveness of advertising on Google's and its partners' sites and applications. Blue Shield's unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal identifying information and private and sensitive health information, all without adequate notification to Plaintiff and Class members regarding that data sharing, is an invasion of Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been insured by BSCA and used BSCA's services for several years. The Defendant owns and controls blueshieldca.com and related webpages ("Website"), and it also owns and controls a mobile.[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 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 29, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Massachusetts Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10565 (D. Mass., Filed March 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Deadline to begin rolling production of documents in response to first set of document requests 45 days after the entry of the ESI/PO Order Deadline to begin rolling production of structured data August 1, 2025. -- Deadline to complete production of structured data March 1, 2026. -- Deadline for production of privilege logs 30 days after each rolling document production from which privileged materials have been withheld/redacted Filing of proposed deposition protocol September 30, 2025. -- Deadline for Defendants to notify Plaintiff of waiver of privilege to support regulatory mandate defense April 1, 2026. -- Deadline for Plaintiff to make written settlement offer Oct. 14, 2025. -- Status conference set for Oct. 27, 2-025 at 3:00PM. -- Deadline for production of otherwise privileged documents related to regulatory mandate defense May 1, 2026. -- Deadline for deposition of Named Plaintiff May 15, 2026. -- Deadline for substantial completion of document production May 1, 2026. -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend, joinder, substitution of Named Plaintiff June 15, 2026. -- Deadline to serve final privilege log June 30, 2026. -- Close of fact discovery September 5, 2026. -- Motion for class certification/Plaintiff's opening expert report (on both class certification and merits) October 29, 2026. -- Opposition to Motions for Class certification, Defendants' Daubert motions and opposition expert reports (on both class certification and merits) February 4, 2027. -- Reply in support of motions for class certification, reply expert reports and Plaintiffs' Daubert motions April 1, 2027. -- Deadline for Defendants' opposition to Daubert motions and replies in support of defense Daubert motions May 27, 2027. -- Deadline for Plaintiffs reply in support of Daubert motions June 24, 2027. The nature of suit states antitrust litigation. Boehringer manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 36 drugs in the United States.[CC] BRAND NAME: Cortez Wins Bid for Default Judgment ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CORTEZ, v BRAND NAME 99 CENTS & UP CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-05262-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting motion for default judgment. The Plaintiff is entitled to relief on his claims for back wages, liquidated damages, wage notice and wage statement violations, and costs. Damages are awarded against Defendant as follows: -- $17,348.57 in back wages under the NYLL, with 9% prejudgment interest accruing from April 7, 2024; -- $17,348.57 in liquidated damages; -- $5,000 for the Defendant's violation of NYLL section 195(1) and $5,000 for the Defendant's violation of NYLL section 195(3); -- $484.00 in costs; and -- Post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1961. The Court's judgment provides that "if any amounts remain unpaid upon the expiration of ninety days following issuance of judgment, or ninety days after the expiration of the time to appeal and no appeal is then pending, whichever is later, the total amount of judgment shall automatically increase by fifteen percent." The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for the Plaintiff and close this case. The Plaintiff commenced this action on July 11, 2024, against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff was employed as a clerk by the Defendant from Janu. 15, 2024, to June 28, 2024. The Defendant owns and operates a resale business selling houseware and other items. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PAq2wn at no extra charge.[CC] BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 29, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATHEW CAUGHEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-DSC-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher B. Brown entered a case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall exchange Initial Disclosures by May 14, 2025. 2. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings or add new parties by June 30, 2025. 3. The parties shall complete fact discovery related to class certification by Sept. 15, 2025. All interrogatories and requests for admissions and/or production of documents shall be served within sufficient time to allow responses to be completed prior to the close of fact discovery. An additional period of merits discovery will be established after the decision on the motion for class certification. 4. 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. 5. The Plaintiff's Expert Report(s) related to class certification are due on or before Oct. 29, 2025. The Defendants' Expert Report(s) related to class certification are due on or before Dec. 1, 2025. Depositions of all experts related to class certification shall be completed on or before Dec. 29, 2025. 6. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by June 30, 2025. Discovery is NOT stayed pending ADR. 7. Motions for class certification or for summary judgment shall be filed on or before January 29, 2026. Briefs are limited to twenty-five (25) pages. A response/briefing order will follow. 8. The Court will hold a mid-discovery video status conference on Aug. 19, 2025 at 2:00 PM. Bridgecrest Acceptance is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KaBuih at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Court Approves in Part '60s Scoop Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alessia Passafiume, writing for The Chronicle Journal, reports that the Federal Court has rejected the federal government's motion to dismiss a claim for monetary relief in a class-action lawsuit brought by non-status individuals and Metis who were involved in the so-called "'60s Scoop." It's also granting the plaintiffs' request for a motion declaring that the Crown had a duty of care to these kids -- but only the ones placed or adopted through Saskatchewan’s Adopt Indian Métis [AIM] program. The '60s Scoop refers to a period when governments in Canada oversaw the large-scale removal of Indigenous children from their homes to live outside of their communities, mostly with non-Indigenous caregivers. A class-action settlement for survivors saw the federal government pay about $750 million in compensation -- but Métis were largely excluded from that because child welfare services for them were run by the provinces. Métis and non-status individuals who were apprehended as children from their families filed a class-action lawsuit arguing Canada should compensate them as well -- but the Federal Court says Ottawa is not liable. The Federal Court says that only those who were placed or adopted through Saskatchewan's AIM program fall under Canada's duty of care because that program received federal funding. "This is because the federal government directly funded AIM, which, in the context of the historical relationship, creates the proximity necessary to establish a duty of care," wrote Justice Sébastien Grammond in the decision released April 29. "The harm was foreseeable and there are no countervailing policy considerations negating such a duty." The AIM program ran newspaper campaigns that advertised Métis children available for adoption. Grammond wrote that when the federal government funded that program, it would have known the outcome would be the permanent separation of Indigenous children from their families and communities. "This was obvious from the grant application, and even from the name of the program itself, as adoption severs the relationship between a child and their biological parents," he wrote. "What matters is that funding the program enabled the harm it allegedly caused to class members." Manitoba Métis Federation president David Chartrand, whose organization was an intervener in the case, said he was disappointed by the decision. "But I think at the end of the day, the question really has to (be) to the federal government of Canada," he said. "How can you settle the First Nations and leave the Métis and non-status out? The federal government will definitely have to look in a mirror and ask themselves that question." This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 1, 2025. [GN] CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Underfunded Housing on Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Tiar Wheatle, writing for APTN News, reports that two First Nations met with media Wednesday, April 30, in Winnipeg to outline a class action lawsuit they have launched against the federal government over the "housing crisis on reserve." "Canada has deliberately underfunded housing on reserves, while simultaneously isolating First Nations and imposing restrictions on their ability to provide housing for themselves," said the statement of claim filed in 2023. "The resulting catastrophe for First Nations and their members was not only predictable, it was the Defendant's intended result. "Throughout, Canada sought to weaken First Nations, diminish their numbers, and ultimately force the assimilation of their members." According to leaders from St. Theresa Point Ansininew and Sandy Lake First Nation, this is the first case to "consider the federal government's obligation to provide adequate housing on reserve." They said 100 First Nations have opted into the class action. "The Crown forced us to move onto reserve land that it deemed economically invaluable, and packed us in like a can of sardines. We were set up to suffer. The housing crisis on reserve is a national shame," said Raymond Flett, chief of St. Theresa Point Ansininew. "Those who are forced to leave the reserve to try to secure adequate housing also suffer, as they experience targeted violence and all too often die prematurely in the city." According to the First Nations, Canada has "deliberately underfunded the construction and maintenance of homes in First Nations," but at the same time, "imposed restrictions on First Nations' ability to build and finance their own homes. The resulting housing shortage is a man-made catastrophe, which has overwhelmed northern and remote First Nations. "The housing conditions in these First Nations more closely resemble developing countries than the rest of Canada," said a statement released by the parties. Flett said the average house in St. Theresa Point Ansininew and Sandy Lake First Nations have 15 to 20 people and a majority of the homes have mould. "While Canada has repeatedly promised to address the lack of housing in First Nations, it has failed to deliver. Canada's refusal to fulfill its obligations to First Nations is the latest chapter of its longstanding history of forcing First Nations people from their lands," said a statement from communities. "First Nations have been left with no choice but to turn to the Courts because they are in an urgent state of crisis. The housing shortage on reserve is directly linked to First Nations people experiencing poor physical and mental health, which includes infant mortality rates that are approximately triple the national average and a youth suicide epidemic." In March 2024, APTN reported on Auditor General Karen Hogan's report where she chastised the federal government and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) for "hopelessly falling behind" in funding First Nations housing on reserve. Her audit found that because CMHC relied on data from the 2001 Census, the effect of not updating the information "resulted in First Nations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba being significantly underfunded and therefore not receiving their equitable share of funding." Between 2008 and 2023, Alberta was underfunded by $141 million, Saskatchewan by $72.92 million and Manitoba by $60 million, according to the AG's report, for a total of $274 million. Hogan also reported that people living on reserves were four times more likely to live in crowded conditions and six times more likely to be living in a home that needed major repairs compared to non-Indigenous people. "The class action alleges that Canada has breached its obligations to First Nations and their members by failing to ensure that reserves have adequate housing. Canada is alleged to have been negligent, breached its fiduciary duties, breached the honour of the Crown, and breached several rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," the nations said. The class action seeks "$5 billion, or such sum as the Court deems appropriate, for breaches of its fiduciary duties and negligence." The claim is also asking for "punitive damages in the amount of $100 million." $100 million compensation and an order that the federal government comply with its obligation to provide adequate housing on reserve.[GN] CDK GLOBAL: $630MM Settlement Deal in Loop Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOOP LLC d/b/a AUTOLOOP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00571-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order that: 1. The parties' motion for preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement, is granted. 2. The parties may have until May 13, 2025, to issue notice to the class members, in accordance with this opinion. 3. CDK may have until May 27, 2025, to file proof that it has complied with the notice requirements in 28 U.S.C. section 1715(b). 4. The parties may have until June 10, 2025, to file a motion for final approval of the settlement. 5. The deadline for class members to object to the settlement is July 15, 2025. 6. The parties may have until July 29, 2025, to file a reply to any objections. 7. The court will hold a settlement approval hearing on Aug. 29, 2025, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 260. The court is willing to withhold judgment at the preliminary stage and allow the class members to weigh in before determining whether final settlement approval is appropriate. In this certified class action, the plaintiff contends that the defendant violated antitrust law by conspiring with its competitor The Reynolds and Reynolds Company to unreasonably restrain trade in the market for data-integration services, leading to higher prices. The settlement agreement provides that CDK will pay a total of $630 million, which will be divided up as follows: -- $20 million for class counsel's legal expenses -- $350,000 for the administrator's expenses -- $250,000 for Loop's service award -- One-third of the remaining amount, or $203,133,133, for attorney fees. -- Two-thirds of the remaining amount, or $406,266,667, to be distributed to the 243 class members. CDK provides integrated information technology and digital marketing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FauSO5 at no extra charge.[CC] CENTURY ALUMINUM: Settlement in McDaniel Suit Gets Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Katie Leigh McDaniel, on behalf of herself and a class of all others similarly situated, Myrna S. Seibel, Robert B. Deaver, Amber Brown, and Catherine B. Burns, v. Century Aluminum Company and Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05766-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval. The Court adopts the Parties' proposed timeline for implementing the class action settlement as follows: May 2, 2025: Settlement website launched May 9, 2025: Class notice mailed June 9, 2025: Fee petition due June 23, 2025: Opt-out and objection deadline July 7, 2025: Final approval motion due July 23, 2025 at 10:00 A.M.: Final approval hearing The Court certifies a conditional settlement class as follows: Settlement Class: "All Persons who, as of Sept. 1, 2023, owned a single-family home located in the Class Area as reflected by the Berkley County public records." Excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) Defendants; (2) any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; (3) any Person with ownership interest in Defendants; (4) any current or former officer or director of Defendants; (5) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs, a class of persons who owned single-family homes in the Class Area as of September 1, 2023, seek property damages from Defendants stemming from repeated emissions of aluminum oxide particulates, also known as alumina, from Defendants’ Mount Holly aluminum smelter in September 2023 into the air that Plaintiffs allege damaged their properties. The Plaintiffs bring claims of trespass, nuisance, negligence and gross negligence and negligence per se against Defendants. Century Aluminum is a US-based producer of primary aluminum. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bA9NOi at no extra charge.[CC] CEREVEL THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Gross Law Firm issues a notice to shareholders of Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ABBV). Shareholders who purchased shares of ABBV during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that: (a) sold or otherwise disposed of the publicly-traded common stock of Cerevel during the period from October 11, 2023 through August 1, 2024, inclusive. (b) held shares of Cerevel as of the January 8, 2024 record date and were entitled to vote on the merger of Cerevel and AbbVie Inc. (c) sold shares of Cerevel stock contemporaneously with Bain Capital's purchase of shares on or about October 16, 2023. ALLEGATIONS: According to the complaint, Cerevel's October 16, 2023 secondary stock offering (the “October Offering” or “Offering”) documents and other public statements omitted material facts regarding AbbVie's interest in acquiring Cerevel at a price well in excess of the $22.81 per share Offering price, artificially deflating Cerevel's stock price until the merger was announced. Moreover, Cerevel's controlling shareholder, Bain Capital Investors, LLC (“Bain”), acquired Cerevel shares from the October Offering at an artificially depressed price while allegedly in possession of material nonpublic information regarding AbbVie's interest. On December 6, 2023, Cerevel publicly announced that AbbVie agreed to acquire Cerevel for $45 per share. The merger allowed Bain to receive a windfall of more than $120 million on the shares it acquired at the artificially depressed Offering price. In addition, Cerevel's January 18, 2024 Proxy statement misled investors regarding the true nature and timing of AbbVie's interest in Cerevel. DEADLINE: June 3, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering for this class action. Register your information here: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cerevel-therapeutics-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=146202&from=3 NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who purchased shares of ABBV during the timeframe listed above, you will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 3, 2025. There is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case. WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN] 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. 30-2025-01464498-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00760-JVS-ADS. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following claims against Defendants: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide and Maintain Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com - and - Ashley N. Lopeztello, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 321-5000 Email: alopeztello@btlaw.com CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Royalties Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of order denying class certification in the lawsuit entitled The Anderson Living Trust, f/k/a The James H. Anderson Living Trust, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ConocoPhillips Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-cv-00039, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant claiming it underpaid royalties to them and a putative class from January 2005 through July 2017. In their Third Amended Complaint, they asserted a new claim under New Mexico law. Consequently, the Court denied class certification. It declined to certify a class in part because ascertaining whether the Defendant obtained the highest reasonably obtainable price (HROP) turned on existing market conditions at the time of each sale, and individualized issues would therefore overwhelm the common questions. The Plaintiffs then moved for partial summary judgment and pressed the same argument the Court rejected at class certification. The Court nonetheless granted partial summary judgment. Changing course, it ruled that the Defendant had a duty to obtain not just the HROP but the highest net value (HNV) for gas. The Plaintiffs also moved for reconsideration of the order denying class certification. The Court granted reconsideration and certified the newly defined class to pursue the HNV claim. The appellate case is captioned ConocoPhillips Company, LLC v. The Anderson Living Trust, f/k/a The James H. Anderson Living Trust, et al., Case No. 25-702, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 11, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, LLC is represented by: Stephen G. Masciocchi, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80238 Telephone: (303) 295-8000 Email: smasciocchi@hollandhart.com - and – Robert J. Sutphin, Esq. Mark F. Sheridan, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 110 North Guadalupe, Suite 1 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 988-4421 Email: rsutphin@hollandhart.com msheridan@hollandhart.com CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY JOHNSON, v. CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC; CONTINENTAL PURCHASING, LLC; CKS PRIME INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02001-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification, certifying the proposed Class, declaring that Continental's new Change in Terms Notice is invalid as it applies to Class members, and directing a curative notice to the Class at Continental's expense, and for other and further appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs move for class certification of their claims against the Defendants because, as discussed in the attached and incorporated memorandum of law, the requirements for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are met. Continental Finance provides financial technology solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=riwNw7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. Richard S. Gordon, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD. Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000 11350 McCormick Rd. Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com rgordon@GWCfirm.com COPART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Cohen Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- COPART, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Arik Cohen, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Copart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03268, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant engages in an unlawful scheme whereby it intentionally misleads consumers into making bids on and purchases of vehicles and automobiles by knowingly and fraudulently misrepresenting the condition of the automobiles through its advertising, in violation of California Business & Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On Apr. 4, 2025, Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an Order remanding the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action to the Los Angeles Superior Court due to lack of equitable jurisdiction over the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) causes of action. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was dismissed as moot. The appellate case is entitled Cohen v. Copart, Inc., Case No. 25-2389, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ARIK COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Keith M. Fleischman, Esq. FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 402 White Plains, NY 10601 Defendant-Petitioner COPART, INC. is represented by: Scott E. Gant, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 CPOD: Seeks More Time to File Counterclaim Response --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMITTEE FOR POLICE OFFICERS DEFENSE PAC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04679-GAW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for an extension of time to May 22, 2025, in order to file a response to the Counter-Plaintiff's Counterclaim. Committee for Police Officers' Defense is a 527 Committee designed to seek out radical prosecutors, judges and district attorneys. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=240EQx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com CREATIVE FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Vega Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CREATIVE FURNITURE GALLERIES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03768 (D.N.J., May 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.campmor.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Jan. 20, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website, www.creativefurntiurestore.com website, to purchase a backpack. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DAN AND DAVE: Wills Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAN AND DAVE INDUSTRIES, D/B/A ART OF PLAY, Case No. 1:25-cv-02451 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises because the Defendant's website, www.artofplay.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DANIEL DRISCOLL: Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Response Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE A. SMOKE et al., v. DANIEL P. DRISCOLL, Secretary of the Army, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-02919-ACR (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying the deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's revised motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel until the Court adopts a further briefing schedule following the parties' anticipated pre-motion conference with the Court. Currently, it is Defendants' understanding that their response is due on May 2, 2025. Under Local Civil Rule 7(m), the undersigned conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, who conveyed that Plaintiffs consent to the relief sought in this motion. On Jan. 17, 2025, the parties submitted a joint motion to stay Defendants' duty to answer the Complaint and to enter a briefing schedule for both summary judgment and class certification. That proposed briefing schedule provided for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ amended class-certification motion on the same date as their response to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. See id. The Court granted the parties’ motion to stay the answer deadline, but entered a modified briefing schedule, providing only a deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended motion for class certification on or before April 18, 2025, and for the parties to file pre-motion notices on or before May 1, 2025 and thereafter to request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference. On April 24, 2025, the parties conferred regarding the Plaintiffs' recently-filed amended motion and the upcoming deadline to file a pre-motion notice. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WdJnlz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alane E. Ballweg, Esq. Johnny H. Walker, Esq. DOJ 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2574 E-mail: alane.ballweg@usdoj.gov johnny.walker@usdoj.gov DICK'S SPORTING: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by May 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knoblauch, et al., v. Dick's Sporting Goods Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00315 (E.D. Wisc., Filed March 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint setting forth their claims solely on an individual basis, or to otherwise update the Court as to the status of this matter, on or before May 14, 2025. In February 2025, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval and class certification. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to renew their motion, if at all, within sixty days. That deadline has passed with no word from either party. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Dick's Sporting is an American chain of sporting goods stores founded in 1948 by Richard "Dick" Stack.[CC] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHY LANDIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00005-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. Elevance Health is an American for-profit health insurance provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vHb50R at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com - and - William Barrett, Esq. Joshua M. Krasner, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC 5 West Hargett St., Suite 910 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 999-2799 E-mail: wbarrett@barrettlawoffices.com jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com FACEBOOK INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Nov. 19 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-01725-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order extending the Defendants' deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification to Nov. 19, 2025. The Court further extends the deadline to join parties or otherwise amend the pleadings to May 30, 2025. If the Plaintiffs file a motion to amend their complaint on or before May 30, 2025, the Defendants' deadline to answer the complaint and all deadlines related to the Defendants' anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings shall automatically be stayed. All other deadlines shall remain in effect, and discovery will remain open absent further order of the Court. The Plaintiffs should advise the Defendants ahead of the May 30 deadline if they intend to move to amend by that date. This Order is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to seek amendment after May 30, 2025 under Rule 16. Facebook is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yPz8GO at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST ADVANTAGE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $650,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that First Advantage Form I-9 Compliance, LLC has agreed to pay a $650,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged negligent cybersecurity by the company resulted in a February 2024 data breach. The court-approved website for the Form I-9 Compliance data breach settlement can be found at FormI9DataSettlement.com. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information may have been compromised in the Form I-9 Compliance data breach, which occurred on or about February 5, 2024. To receive benefits from the Form I-9 Compliance class action settlement, eligible class members must file a claim form online or by mail by May 14, 2025. You can submit a claim form online on this page. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form or contact the settlement administrator to request a paper copy to fill out and return by mail. To submit a Form I-9 Compliance settlement claim form online, you will need your unique notice ID and confirmation code, which can be found on the personalized settlement notice you should have received. According to the settlement agreement, class members who file a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive up to $1,500 per person for unreimbursed "ordinary" losses that are "fairly traceable" to the incident and supported by documentation. Per the agreement, these out-of-pocket losses may include bank fees, phone or data charges, postage, gas, fees for credit monitoring or identity theft protection services, or other miscellaneous expenses. The Form I-9 Compliance settlement website states that consumers may alternatively submit a claim to receive up to $5,000 per person for documented "extraordinary" losses linked to fraud or identity theft. Qualifying costs must be unreimbursed and reasonably traceable to the data breach and must have occurred between the incident and May 14 of this year, the site says. In lieu of the aforementioned class action settlement payments, class members can elect to receive a $50 cash payout. All settlement payments, including compensation for ordinary or extraordinary losses and the $50 cash payout, are subject to adjustment on a pro rata basis in order to exhaust the settlement fund, the site discloses. In addition to any cash benefits, class members may file a claim form for identity monitoring services at no cost. According to the site, consumers who did not accept the Experian services previously offered by Form I-9 Compliance in connection with the data breach notice letter may elect to receive up to three years of identity monitoring as part of the class action settlement. Class members who accepted the company’s prior offer of 24 months of these services may opt for an additional year of enrollment, the website states. The Form I-9 Compliance class action settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on January 13, 2025. The parties now await a hearing set for May 19, 2025, at which time the court will decide whether to grant final approval to the deal. Per the website, eligible class members will receive benefits, including a unique identity monitoring redemption code, only if the settlement receives ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved. It is typically after a class action settlement receives final approval that benefits begin to go out to eligible class members. The Form I-9 Compliance class action lawsuit claimed the company, which helps clients complete government-required Form I-9 documents for employment, failed to prevent an unauthorized third party from accessing its IT network and compromising the sensitive data stored therein. The data breach lawsuit asserted that the cyberattack impacted personal information such as names or other personal identifiers and Social Security numbers. [GN] FORD MOTOR: Dolan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN and JAMES MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting an enlargement of time to file their forthcoming motion for class certification to 30 days after the Court rules on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, -- setting the Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the motion for class certification to 30 days after the Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification, and -- setting the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of the motion for class certification to 14 days after the Defendant files its opposition to that motion. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRtDm6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. John J. Maravalli, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com adam@clalegal.com john@clalegal.com - and - W. Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq. LANTZ & ROBINS, P.C. 4900 Augusta Avenue, Suite 120 Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 404-7870 E-mail: rrobins@lantzrobins.com - and - Leland Belew, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com mbreit@milberg.com - and - John R. Fabry, Esq. THE CARLSON LAW FIRM 1717 N. 1-35, Suite 305 Round Rock, TX 78664 Telephone: (512) 671-7277 Facsimile: (512) 238-0275 E-mail: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com - and - Mark Miller, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 261-6193 E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com FROEDTERT THEDACARE: Goston Seeks Leave to File FAC --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN GOSTON, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. FROEDTERT THEDACARE HEALTH, INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01482-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file first amended complaint. Because filing the proposed Amended Complaint will not prejudice Froedtert and is brought in good faith, leave to amend should be granted. On Nov. 15, 2024, Goston filed this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a Rule 23 class under Wisconsin law. On April 7, 2025, Froedtert filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration of the Named Plaintiff. Froedtert is a Wisconsin-based healthcare system formed from the merger of Froedtert Health and ThedaCare. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vhqXQz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Connor J. Clegg, Esq. 5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 207-6079 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com cclegg@hq-law.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GEORGIA: Cappelletti Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIGID CAPPELLETTI, et al., v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00009-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for filing their motion for class certification 60 days to June 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs are authorized to represent that the Defendants, without consenting to the jurisdiction of this Court, do not oppose the relief requested. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit raising claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with the Defendants' administration of the Georgia Mortgage Assistance program. The Defendants agreed to waive service, and the Plaintiffs filed the waiver of service form on April 25, 2025. Georgia Department of Community Affairs introduces and supports programs that help communities realize growth and development. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j2ou4z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jared B. Magnuson, Esq. Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq. William T. Thompson, Esq. Mark M. Rothrock, Esq. LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP 3280 Peachtree Road NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (512) 693-8350 E-mail: jared@lkcfirm.com jon@lkcfirm.com will@lkcfirm.com mark@lkcfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Logan Winkles, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRIS CARR 40 Capitol Square SW Atlanta, GA 30334 Telephone: (404) 458-3236 E-mail: lwinkles@law.ga.gov GERRITSEN AVENUE: Cherashniy Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ NIKOLAS CHERASHNIY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GERRITSEN AVENUE BAGELS INC. d/b/a Gerritsen Bagels, and BORIS LERNER, Case No. 1:25-cv-02470 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $12.00, less than the New York State Statutory Minimum Wage. During the relevant period, the minimum wage for employees who perform work for small employers in New York City was $15.00 per hour on and after December 31, 2019; and $16.00 per hour on and after January 1, 2024. Despite Plaintiff working very long hours, Defendants failed to pay overtime premiums for work performed in excess of 40 hours per work week. Rather, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Action Members their straight hourly rate for all hours worked, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Cherashniy was employed by Defendants as a baker and sandwich maker from May 2024 until on or around October 15, 2024. The Defendant operates restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Clifford Appointed as Mediator in Rivera Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL RIVERA, et al., on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, Case No. 2:23-cv-21387-MEF-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Jessica Allen entered an order as follows: -- Dennis Clifford, Esq. will serve as Mediator. -- The parties are to submit a joint letter on or before May 14, 2025, confirming the scheduled mediation date. -- The parties and the mediator may fix the amount of the terms of the mediator's compensation. -- The parties are to submit a joint letter addressing the outcome of the mediation on or before July 22, 2025. Givaudan manufactures and sells fragrances and flavor products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9pfRW at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL TEL LINK: Agrees to Settle Excess Charges Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Global Tel Link (GTL) agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged incarcerated individuals and their families excessive fees for communications services. The Global Tel Link class action settlement benefits those who were incarcerated in a West Virginia jail or prison between May 15, 2022, and April 30, 2023, and were charged excess amounts by ViaPath for video calls and other messaging services or who contacted an individual incarcerated in a West Virginia jail or prison between May 15, 2022, and April 30, 2023, and were charged excess amounts for video calls and/or other messaging services. According to the GTL class action lawsuit, Global Tel Link charged incarcerated individuals and their families excessive fees for video calls, messaging and other communication services. These fees allegedly violated the Federal Telecommunications Act and West Virginia consumer laws. Global Tel Link, doing business as ViaPath Technologies, is a telecommunications company that provides communication services for incarcerated individuals. GTL has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Global Tel Link class action settlement, class members can receive a full refund for the amounts they overpaid for video calls, messaging and tablet usage. Class members who were overcharged will receive an additional refund equal to the amount they were overcharged. For example, if a class member was overcharged $10, they would receive a $10 refund plus an additional $10 for a total payment of $20. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the GTL class action settlement is scheduled for July 18, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who’s Eligible Consumers who were incarcerated in a West Virginia jail or prison at any time between May 15, 2022, and April 30, 2023, and were charged excess amounts by ViaPath for video calls and other messaging services placed from an Inspire Wireless Tablet or non-incarcerated individuals who contacted someone incarcerated in a West Virginia jail or prison between May 15, 2022, and April 30, 2023, using a ViaPath “Getting Out” smartphone application and were charged excess amounts for video calls and/or other messaging services. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Exclusion Deadline 6/30/205 Case Name Allen, et al. v. Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies, Case No. 1:24-cv-827-LMB-IDD, in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia Final Hearing 07/18/2025 Settlement Website GlobalTelSettlement.com Claims Administrator Allen v Global Tel*Link Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 23459 Jacksonville, FL 32241 info@GlobalTelSettlement.com (866) 227-7735 Class Counsel Lydia Milnes Colten Fleu MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE INC. Len Bennett Drew Sarrett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES P.C. Kristi Kelly Andrew Guzzo Casey Nash J. Patrick McNichol Matthew Rosendahl KELLY GUZZO PLC Shelby Leighton PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C. Defense Counsel Raighne Delaney BEAN, KINNEY & KORMAN P.C. [GN] GO WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Unpaid Commissions' Suit for $13MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Go Wireless agreed to a $13 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to pay sales commissions to its employees. The Go Wireless class action settlement benefits individuals who worked for Go Wireless as a wireless consultant, assistant store manager, store manager or other position that received compensation via commissions from sales in retail locations between May 2014 and July 2019. According to a class action lawsuit, Go Wireless failed to pay its employees their full commissions when they left the company or took time off. The commission class action lawsuit claims Go Wireless violated its own commission policies and violated state laws in Nevada and California. Go Wireless is a retailer that operates more than 1,000 locations across the country. The company was acquired by Victra in 2022. Go Wireless hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $13 million to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Go Wireless commission settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on their estimated damages. Payments will vary depending on the class member's job position, length of employment and other factors. Exact payment amounts will vary. Class members can enter their information on the settlement website to receive an estimate of their payment. The deadline for objection is July 10, 2025. There is no exclusion deadline for this Go Wireless class action settlement. The final approval hearing for the Go Wireless commission settlement is scheduled for Aug. 12, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must verify their identity by July 10, 2025. Who's Eligible Go Wireless employees who worked as wireless consultants, assistant store managers, store managers and other positions that received compensation via commissions from sales in retail locations between May 2014 and July 2019. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM » 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 07/10/2025 Case Name In re: Go Wireless Commission Litigation, Case No. A-17-752802-C, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada Final Hearing 08/12/2025 Settlement Website GWClassAction.com Claims Administrator Apex Class Action P.O. Box 54668 Irvine, CA 92619 claims@apexclassaction.com (800) 355-0700 Class Counsel J. Randall Jones KEMP JONES LLP Michael J. Gayan CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM Brian S. Kabateck Shant Karnikian KABATECK LLP Brandon Fernald FERNALD & ZAFFOS Defense Counsel John R. Bailey Dennis L. Kennedy Joseph A. Liebman Paul C. Williams FISCHER & PHILLIPS LCC [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Pre-Trial Order Entered In Antitrust Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered a pre-trial order as follows: 1. Motions in limine regarding expert testimony relied upon by a party to support or oppose class certification may be filed on the schedule and with the page limits herein without the need for a pre-motion letter. 2. If the plaintiffs rely on expert testimony in support of their class certification motions, the defendant on the same date its answering brief is due (June 16, 2025) may seek to exclude the expert or experts in a single brief not to exceed 20 pages per expert. On the date plaintiffs' replies in further support of their motions for class certification are due (July 16, 2025), plaintiffs (a) may respond to the defendant's brief on the plaintiffs' experts in a single brief not to exceed 20 pages per expert; and (b) may seek to exclude any expert relied upon by defendant in a brief not to exceed 20 pages per defendant's expert. By July 30, 2025, the defendant may file a brief not to exceed 20 pages per the defendant's expert responding to the plaintiffs' submission seeking to exclude an expert of defendant. 3. Reply submissions on any expert-related issue will not be permitted unless ordered by the Court. 4. No motions addressed to the admissibility of evidence at trial or on a summary judgment motion may be filed at this time. 5. The Clerk shall terminate the letter motion at ECF 941. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fBGoVF at no extra charge.[CC] HOLOSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Potential Battery Ingestion Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Holosun Technologies, Inc. faces a proposed class action lawsuit after recalling about 9,400 firearm dot sights equipped with a small lithium coin battery that can be easily accessed by children or pets, posing an ingestion hazard. The 20-page lawsuit centers around a February 2025 recall of Holosun Red Dot Sights, model HS503G-ACSS, and Holosun Gold Dot Sights, model HE512C-GD, sold from February 2023 through August 2024 for between $250 and $350. The complaint accuses Holosun of violating Reese's Law, named in memory of an 18-month-old child who died after swallowing a button battery. Enacted in 2022, the federal law strengthens safety standards by requiring child-resistant closures on products containing button cell or coin batteries and ensuring that packaging contains proper warnings of the risks of ingestion. According to the case, the packaging for the recalled dot sights lacks the required warning about a potential battery ingestion hazard. The Holosun lawsuit further contends that the battery is not properly enclosed in child-resistant packaging, allowing easy access to the component. Per the suit, Holosun's failure to include secure battery compartments and provide an adequate warning label poses a "grave risk of harm" to gun owners' children and pets, as accidental ingestion can cause significant injuries, internal chemical burns and death. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) recall announcement, issued on February 20, 2025, describes the dot sight as a firearm accessory intended to assist with precision aiming. The CPSC has urged consumers to immediately stop using the recalled Holosun firearm dot sights and keep the products away from children. The plaintiff, a Texas resident who bought two of Holosun's recalled dot sights, claims he and other consumers are entitled to full refunds and financial damages for being exposed to such dangers. The man said he would have paid significantly less for the dot sights, or would not have bought them at all, had he known the product presented a dangerous ingestion hazard. The CPSC notice indicates that the Holosun firearm dot sight recall is providing affected consumers with replacements. "Contact Holosun Technologies for instructions on receiving a free recall kit which includes a battery compartment enclosure with the required labeling and an updated instruction manual for HS503G-ACSS models," the CPSC recall announcement reads. "For HE512C-GD models, Holosun Technologies will provide free return shipping to install a compliant battery compartment tray and include a compliant instruction manual and new packaging." The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who purchased a Holosun Red or Gold Dot Sight, models HS503G-ACSS and HE512C-GD, in the United States between February 2023 and August 2024. [GN] HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs' Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, SAUNDRA STEWARD, CLYDE SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLOTTE BECK, RANDY LANGFORD, BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, and KIM FAULKNER, Illinois residents on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci Yandle entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate for trial, which Honeywell opposes. The Plaintiffs request the consolidation of Roger Steward, et. al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 18-cv-1124-SMY and City of Metropolis, Illinois, et. al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 21-cv-860-SMY. Although the cases arise from the same general set of facts, the consolidation of these cases would not serve judicial economy, primarily because the cases are at two very different stages. The City case is currently set for trial in October 2025, but Steward will not be ready for trial by then as class certification is still pending in that case. After the resolution of class certification, additional motion practice and post-certification discovery will likely be needed. Additionally, despite some common issues, the cases involve different claims for relief and seek different remedies related to different properties. Honeywell provides aerospace products and services, control, sensing and security technologies. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bobZ0c at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES UTHMEIER: Bid for Provisional Class Cert Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORIDA IMMIGRANT COALITION, et al., v. JAMES UTHMEIER, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-21524-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Williams entered an omnibus order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted. 2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Provisional Class Certification is granted in part and denied in part. 3. The Court provisionally certifies the Entry Class and Reentry Class, as defined, supra, for the purpose of issuing the Preliminary Injunction. 4. The Plaintiffs' counsel are appointed as provisional class counsel 5. The Court enters a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and any persons who are in active concert or participation with them from enforcing S.B. 4-C, codified as Florida Statutes sections 811.102–.103, against any member of the Entry Class or Reentry Class. The Plaintiffs propose the following two classes, which draw from the language of S.B. 4-C's two offense provisions to capture anyone "potentially subject" to their enforcement: Proposed Entry Class "Any person not a citizen or national of the United States who may now or in the future enter or attempt to enter the state of Florida after entering the United States by eluding or avoiding examination or inspection by immigration officers." Proposed Reentry Class "Any person not a citizen or national of the United States who may enter, attempt to enter, or be found in the state of Florida after the person has been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States; or has departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding." A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2gSy2Q at no extra charge.[CC] JBS USA: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Action for $83.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland, Inc., and JBS S.A. (collectively, "JBS") have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit brought against them by Cattle Plaintiffs who allege that defendants JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef -- the four largest meat packers (the companies that buy fed cattle, slaughter, and process them into beef) -- conspired to eliminate or reduce competition among them for the purchase of fed cattle (cattle finished on a high energy ration), thereby artificially reducing the price cattle feeders received for their fed cattle. Cattle Plaintiffs bring a separate, but related, claim under the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"), alleging Defendants manipulated the price of exchange-traded Live Cattle contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"). Cattle Plaintiffs are Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, Weinreis Brothers Partnership, Minatare Feedlot, Inc., Charles Weinreis, Eric Nelson, James Jensen d/b/a Lucky 7 Angus, and Richard Chambers as trustee of the Richard C. Chambers Living Trust. JBS denies any liability, fault, or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations in the action. JBS will pay $83,500,000 into a settlement fund to settle the class action antitrust, PSA, and CEA claims against them and to provide certain cooperation to Cattle Plaintiffs in this litigation against the remaining defendants and in to distribute the net settlement amount. Cattlemen may be eligible to receive a payment if they directly sold to a defendant one or more fed cattle for slaughter from June 1, 2015, to Feb. 29, 2020, other than pursuant to a cost-plus agreement and/or a profit sharing agreement; and/or (ii) held a long position in live cattle futures traded on the CME prior to June 1, 2015, and liquidated the long position through an offsetting market transaction at any point prior to Nov. 1, 2016. To learn who the defendants and alleged co-conspirators are, visit www.CattleAntitrustSettlement.com/. Settlement class members who do not exclude themselves are eligible to submit a claim to receive their share of money from the net settlement fund. Claim forms must be submitted electronically or mailed such that they are postmarked by Sept. 15, to receive a payment from the settlement fund. You may access a claim form from the settlement website and submit it online or download and mail it to the address on the claim form. Claim forms are also available by calling 1-844-435-8844 or emailing Info@CattleAntitrustSettlement.com. Settlement class members who do nothing will be bound by the settlement and will give up any right to sue JBS and the other released defendants in a separate lawsuit related to the legal claims in this lawsuit. Those wanting to keep their rights to separately sue JBS and the other released defendants, must submit a written request to exclude themselves from the settlement postmarked by July 7. Those who do not want to exclude themselves may object to the settlement and/or ask for permission to appear and speak at the fairness hearing but must do so by July 7. Complete information is available at Info@CattleAntitrustSettlement.com. The court will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 15 at 10 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth Street, Courtroom 14E, Minneapolis, MN 55415, to decide whether to approve the settlement, grant the requested attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and the proposed plan of allocation and distribution. Plaintiffs or their lawyers may appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense, but there is no requirement to do so. Please check www.CattleAntitrustSettlement.com for updates on the date or time of the hearing. [GN] JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Seeks More Time to File Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS HARRIET’S WILDEST DREAMS, INC. AND DORNETHIA “NEE NEE” TAYLOR, TO PERMIT ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, AND TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FAORO, v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC. D/B/A OCCUPATION FREE DC, DISSENTERS, PALESTINIAN YOUTH MOVEMENT A PROJECT OF WESPAC FOUNDATION,INC., WESPAC FOUNDATION,INC., HARRIET’S WILDEST DREAMS,INC., DORNETHIA "NEE NEE" TAYLOR, PARTY OF SOCIALISM & LIBERATION, BRIAN BECKER, MARYLAND2PALESTINE, HANNAH SHRAIM, AND 23 JOHN AND JANE DOES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00289-ABJ (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to: (1) extend the time to serve Defendants Harriet's Wildest Dreams, Inc. and Dornethia "Nee Nee" Taylor under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) permit service by alternative means under Rule 4(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) extend the time to file Faoro's motion for class certification for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and supported by the Declaration of Neville Hedley. Faoro requests an extension of six weeks from the date of entry of the Court's order on his motion or any period the Court deems appropriate. Faoro makes this request in good faith and not for purposes of delay. No defendant would be prejudiced by the extension, while Faoro would be severely prejudiced due to the statute of limitations having expired for at least one of his claims. This action arises out of a traffic blockage coordinated and executed by Defendants in Washington, DC, demonstrating against the existence of the state of Israel. The Plaintiff Daniel Faoro was among the thousands of victims who was trapped in his car and was unable to travel to work or other appointments in and around the District that day. Faoro filed his complaint as a class action on Jan. 31, 2025. Jewish Voice for Peace is an American Jewish anti-Zionist and left-wing advocacy organization. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jynRBj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna St. John, Esq. Neville S. Hedley, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (917) 327-2392 E-mail: anna.stjohn@hlli.org ned.hedley@hlli.org JM SMUCKER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jeruchim Due June 5 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order extending the litigation schedule: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be due by June 5, 2025. 2. The Defendants' Opposition will be due by Aug. 11, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' Reply will be due by Sept. 22, 2025. 4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be reset to Oct. 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. 5. Fact discovery cutoff will be Nov. 24, 2025. 6. Expert disclosure will be due Dec. 8, 2025. 7. Expert rebuttal will be due Feb. 5, 2026. 8. Expert discovery cutoff will be March 3, 2026. 9. Dispositive Motions will be heard by May 6, 2026. 10. Pretrial Conference will be set for Aug. 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 11. Trial will be set for Sept. 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. by Jury. J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CBAmYs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Court Consolidates Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN MONTENEGRO, et al., v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-09226-GC-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge J. Brendan Day entered an order consolidating cases and appointing interim lead class counsel: 1. The Clerk shall reactivate the motion to consolidate filed at Civ. No. 24-4109. The Clerk is directed to consolidate these matters (Civ. Nos. 24-4109; 24-8571; and 24-9226) for all purposes under docket number 24-4109 and to assign the consolidated action the master caption "In re Kenvue BPO Products Liability Litigation: a. "Mitchell, et al., v. Kenvue, Inc., et al., Case No. 24- 4109" b. "Jones, et al., v. Kenvue, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-8571" c. "Montenegro, et al., v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al., Civ. No. 24-4109 (GC)(JBD)" All future filings in the consolidated action shall bear that caption. Upon effecting the consolidation, the Clerk shall close docket numbers 24-8571 and 24-9226. 2. The Court appoints as interim co-lead class counsel R. Brent Wisner, Esq., of Wisner Baum, L.L.P.; Nick Suciu III, Esq., of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; and Phil Fraietta, Esq., of Bursor & Fisher P.A. to represent all putative classes and sub-classes of plaintiffs in these actions through a decision on class certification. 3. The Court may, as necessary and appropriate, supplement this Order to authorize or direct interim co-lead counsel to engage in additional actions consistent with or in addition to the powers enumerated above. 4. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and, on or before May 9, 2025, file via CM/ECF a joint letter proposing an agreed-upon schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and briefing on the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss that complaint. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule, they shall set forth their competing proposals in the joint letter. All parties agree that consolidation of these cases for all purposes is appropriate. The Court agrees as well. Indeed, failing to consolidate these cases would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources. Johnson & Johnson provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing products. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qeM5x5 at no extra charge.[CC] KENVUE INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLY JONES, et al., v. KENVUE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08571-GC-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge J. Brendan Day entered an order consolidating cases and appointing interim lead class counsel: 1. The Clerk shall reactivate the motion to consolidate filed at Civ. No. 24-4109. The Clerk is directed to consolidate these matters (Civ. Nos. 24-4109; 24-8571; and 24-9226) for all purposes under docket number 24-4109 and to assign the consolidated action the master caption "In re Kenvue BPO Products Liability Litigation: a. "Mitchell, et al., v. Kenvue, Inc., et al., Case No. 24- 4109" b. "Jones, et al., v. Kenvue, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-8571" c. "Montenegro, et al., v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al., Civ. No. 24-4109 (GC)(JBD)" All future filings in the consolidated action shall bear that caption. Upon effecting the consolidation, the Clerk shall close docket numbers 24-8571 and 24-9226. 2. The Court appoints as interim co-lead class counsel R. Brent Wisner, Esq., of Wisner Baum, L.L.P.; Nick Suciu III, Esq., of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; and Phil Fraietta, Esq., of Bursor & Fisher P.A. to represent all putative classes and sub-classes of plaintiffs in these actions through a decision on class certification. 3. The Court may, as necessary and appropriate, supplement this Order to authorize or direct interim co-lead counsel to engage in additional actions consistent with or in addition to the powers enumerated above. 4. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and, on or before May 9, 2025, file via CM/ECF a joint letter proposing an agreed-upon schedule for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint and briefing on the defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss that complaint. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule, they shall set forth their competing proposals in the joint letter. All parties agree that consolidation of these cases for all purposes is appropriate. The Court agrees as well. Indeed, failing to consolidate these cases would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources. Kenvue is an American consumer health company. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iM3A2r at no extra charge.[CC] KNOT WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Kazerouni Law Group, a nationally recognized firm specializing in complex litigation and consumer rights, announced its filing of a nationwide class action lawsuit against The Knot Worldwide, citing allegations of fraudulent and deceptive business practices. According to the firm's ongoing investigation, The Knot is believed to knowingly provide wedding vendors with ingenuine leads and to have unjustly profited as a result. The anticipated lawsuit will allege that the company knowingly misrepresented its services and engaged in unfair business practices, resulting in significant financial loss and emotional distress for affected weddings vendors. Founding partner, Abbas Kazerounian said, "Small business owners work extremely hard to compete in what is a very saturated wedding industry. This case is about accountability and making those harmed small business owners whole again." Kazerouni Law Group is currently speaking with individuals who may have been affected by The Knot's conduct and encourages anyone who believes they may be part of the impacted group to contact the firm. About Kazerouni Law Group, APC: Kazerouni Law Group is a nationwide law firm based in California, specializing in a broad range of matters, including class action and unfair business practices litigation. With over 15 years of experience, the firm has secured more than $1 billion for plaintiffs across the United States. Case Number: 2:25-cv-03739 Contact Information: Abbas Kazerounian Kazerouni Law Group, APC (800) 400-6808 ak@kazlg.com [GN] KROGER CO: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Womick Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill., Filed June 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting joint motion to amend the court's scheduling order. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification (not to exceed 40 pages) and class certification expert report(s) shall be due 75 days after resolution of defendant's motion to dismiss. -- The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification (not to exceed 40 pages) and class certification expert report(s) are due 60 days after plaintiff's motion for class certification is filed. p -- The Plaintiff's reply to motion for class certification (not to exceed 25 pages) and rebuttal expert report(s) are due 45 days Defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for class certification is filed. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Kroger is an American retail company that operates (either directly or through its subsidiaries) supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States.[CC] LAZ PARKING: Harris Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- AMY HARRIS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Amy Harris, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LAZ Parking Ltd., LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-889, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract arising from an alleged illegal service fee imposed on customers, including the Plaintiff. On Aug. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 29, 2024. On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims in Counts I, II, III, IV, and V were dismissed; the dismissals as to Counts I, II, and III were without leave to amend. The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend for a second time, to attempt to remedy the deficiencies identified in its order as to Counts IV and V only. Any Second Amended Complaint was to be filed by March 5, 2025. The Defendants was to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint by March 19, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Harris v. LAZ Parking LTD, LLC, Case No. 25-859, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AMY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: William M. Bloss, Esq. KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06604 LEXINGTON BLUE: Fails to Provide Restoration Services, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WDRB reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Lexington Blue Roofing. Lexington Blue provided roofing installation and insurance restoration services in Kentucky and southern Ohio for more than 10 years before closing earlier this week, citing more than two years of "persistent financial strain." The company has been under fire in recent months, as homeowners claim they paid the company for services that were never done. The class-action lawsuit was filed Tuesday, April 29, in Jefferson Circuit Court against Lexington Blue. It claims there may be more than 100 people who paid for work that was never completed. A former office manager for Lexington Blue Roofing spoke out earlier this month, claiming the company left dozens of customers in the Louisville area waiting for roofing work that was never completed and misled them along the way. WDRB first reported on Lexington Blue Roofing in March, after a homeowner said she signed a contract and handed over an insurance check for roof repairs that were never done. Months later, the work still hadn't started. [GN] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS, ANTHONY WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal motion for class certification, supporting declarations, and exhibits. The Plaintiffs accordingly move to file the Proposed Sealed Materials under seal because such materials are, summarize, discuss, and contain information that the Defendants have designated "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" and/or "Confidential” under the governing Protective Order that was entered by this Court. If the Court grants the foregoing Motion, the Plaintiffs will submit unredacted versions of the Proposed Sealed Materials under seal, and/or comply with any other method of submission that the Court prefers, and will (if requested by the Court) within fourteen-days after such sealed filing, to allow time for consultation with Defendants, file redacted versions of the Proposed Sealed Materials on the public docket. Pursuant to Local Rules 7.2(a) and (b), the Proposed Sealed Materials should be impounded until further order of the Court, at which point in time Plaintiffs request that the Court notify Plaintiffs’ counsel so that they may retrieve the impounded documents from the Court’s files. Liberty provides personal insurance coverage for auto, home, umbrella, landlord, renters, condo, pet, flood, identity theft, and mobile. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=av2g5E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon Carson, Esq. Y. Michael Twersky, Esq. Julie Selesnick, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mitwersky@bm.net jselesnick@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net - and - Richard M. Ochroch, Esq. Brett N. Benton, Esq. Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq. OCHROCH BENTON, P.C. 318 S. 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 735-2707 E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com bbenton@ochroch-law.com aochroch@ochroch-law.com LIVE NATION: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Gets Court Partial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- JD Supra reports that on April 11, 2025, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC ("Defendants") in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, 2. Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025). The lawsuit was brought by individuals ("Plaintiffs") who purchased primary and secondary tickets for major concert venues and paid fees at allegedly supracompetitive prices as a result of defendants' alleged agreements and anticompetitive conduct. Judge Wu granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Event venues commonly engage third-party ticketing service providers, such as Defendants, to manage the ticketing for popular events which often involve complicated processes. Defendants represent the largest live entertainment company in the world and the largest ticketing company in the United States. In January 2022, Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Defendants, specifically alleging that Defendants pressured event venues to adopt its own ticketing service through coercive conduct. This conduct allegedly restricted competitive opportunities for other ticketing service providers and reduced choices available to vendors. Plaintiffs' Sherman Act Section 2 claims include allegations that Defendants engaged in predatory, exclusionary, and anticompetitive conduct, including tying arrangements, leveraging, conditional license and ticket transferability limits, and vertically-arranged boycotts in acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the markets for primary and secondary ticketing services for major concert venues. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss relying on four arguments in support of the motion. First, Defendants challenged Plaintiffs' antitrust standing, relying on recent Ninth Circuit precedent holding that antitrust injury must occur in the market where competition is restrained and where consumers have injury in the relevant market. The Court determined that the allegations in this case were "fundamentally different" from those in the Ninth Circuit precedent. Judge Wu noted that, unlike the plaintiffs in that case, Plaintiffs here were allegedly directly involved in the alleged markets as purchasers of primary and secondary ticketing services for major concert venues. Ultimately, Judge Wu concluded that Plaintiffs had antitrust standing, as their alleged injuries were direct and non-speculative. Second, Defendants argued that the factual allegations supporting Plaintiffs' Section 1 claim did not provide sufficient detail regarding the unlawful agreements between Defendants and venues, ticket brokers, artists, and others. The Court determined that Plaintiffs had sufficiently identified key aspects of unlawful agreements between Defendants and various venues and ticket brokers, including the "what, how, and why" of the agreements to satisfy Plaintiffs' pleading requirements. However, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the alleged unlawful agreements between Defendants and "artists or others," as those assertions lacked the necessary detail. Third, Defendants alleged Plaintiffs' claims relating to secondary ticketing did not establish a plausible market. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants monopolized, or attempted to monopolize, the secondary ticketing services market for major concert venues. Although Judge Wu questioned Plaintiffs' distinct submarket as defined, it found the alleged market was sufficiently plausible for the pleadings stage. Moreover, the Court considered Defendants' share of over 60% of the U.S. secondary ticketing services for major concert venues and allegations that Defendant, Ticketmaster, has grown, despite higher fees, as sufficient to allege market power. Fourth, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' conduct theories failed as a matter of law. The Court considered the "overall combined effect" of Defendants' conduct. To survive the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiffs must allege facts in support of a theory that is not facially implausible. As such, the Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding tying arrangements, leveraging, conditional license and ticket transferability limits, and vertically-arranged boycotts were all plausible and should not be dismissed at this stage. The majority of Plaintiffs' claims were allowed to proceed, reemphasizing a focus on Defendants, as they are simultaneously litigating other antitrust claims brought by the DOJ and 30 state and district attorneys general. The Court's decision underscores that consumers directly affected by alleged monopolistic practices can pursue their claims, even when the alleged harm is tied to complex business arrangements and narrow markets. [GN] LIVE NATION: Class Settlement in Donley Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN DONLEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICHAEL RAPINO, and JOE BERCHTOLD, Case No. 2:23-cv-06343-KK-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice: 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded common stock of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., between Feb. 23, 2022, and May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) persons and entities that suffered no compensable losses; and (b)(i) Defendants; (ii) any person who served as a partner, control person, officer and/or director of Live Nation during the Settlement Class Period, and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) present and former parents, subsidiaries, assigns, successors, affiliates, and predecessors of Live Nation; (iv) any entity in which any excluded person or entity has or had a controlling interest; (v) any trust of which an Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of an Individual Defendant and/or member(s) of their Immediate Families; and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (v) hereof. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. 2. The class definition is sufficiently precise and ascertainable "such that it is administratively feasible to determine whether a particular person is a class member." 3. The Court finds and concludes that pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of the Settlement only, Lead Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives and certifies them as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints Lead Counsel, the law firms of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., including Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq., Garth A. Spencer, Esq., Phillip Kim, Esq., and Joshua Baker, Esq., as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. The Court will hold a final fairness hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") on Aug. 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Live Nation promotes, operates and manages ticket sales for live entertainment internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YKTwJG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq. Garth A. Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 The Defendant is represented by: Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE RIGANIAN, et al., v. LIVERAMP HOLDINGS, INC., et al. Case No. 4:25-cv-00824-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Deadline to add parties or amend the May 9, 2025 Pleadings: Parties to submit jointly proposed or May 27, 2025 competing ESI and protective orders: Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' April 22, 2026 class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and May 22, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification reply and rebuttal June 22, 2026 class expert reports due: Class certification expert discovery cut-off: July 13, 2026 LiveRamp Holdings offers a data connectivity platform whose services include data onboarding, the transfer of offline data online for marketing purposes. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uCEkNx at no extra charge.[CC] LORETTO HEALTH: Aderohunmu Class Cert Filing Extended to July 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order as follows: (1) Defendant Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center (Loretto) shall produce pre-class certification documents and information to Plaintiffs by May 30, 2025. (2) The Plaintiffs deadline to move for class certification is extended to July 11, 2025. (3) The Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is extended to Aug. 11, 2025. (4) The Defendants expert disclosure deadline is extended to Sept. 22, 2025. (5) Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is extended to Oct. 6, 2025. (6) The deadline for all discovery (merit, named Plaintiffs, and class) to be completed, including all depositions, is extended to Nov. 7, 2025. (7) The filing of dispositive motions deadline is extended to Feb. 9, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides healthcare services.[CC] MAC COSMETICS: Dalton Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., Case No. E 0:25-cv-01964 (D. Minn., May 2, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.maccosmetics.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers skincare and beauty products for sale including cosmetics, facial serums, lotions, cleansers, and accessories. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MAGNUS HOLDINGS: Roofers Local 149 Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magnus Holdings Co. Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund, and all others similarly situated v. Magnus Holdings Co. Ltd., David Maher, Ho Yeon (Aaron) Lee, Keun Chang (Kevin) Yoon, Misto Holdings Corporation (f/k/a Fila Holdings Corp.), Yoon Soo (Gene) Yoon, Case No. 2025-0466 (Del. Chancery Ct., April 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Action." Magnus Holdings Co., Ltd. operates textile businesses. The Company produces athletic shoes, apparel, and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP-DELAWARE 222 Delaware Ave Ste 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-6938 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com MANZANA LLC: Class Certification Bid in Zavala Due Jan. 16, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO JAVIER ZAVALA MARTINEZ, RENE MEZA QUIRINO, CARLOS GIOVANNI PEREZ CASTRO, LUIS ADRIAN PEREZ GARCIA, and VICTOR HUGO MAXIMO DIAZ, v. MANZANA, LLC; N. CASERTANO GREENHOUSES & FARMS, INC.; LAWRENCE WILLIAMS; and JOHN CASERTANO, Case No. 3:24-cv-01900-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered a scheduling order: Initial disclosures due by May 9, 2025, if not previously provided consistent with the deadline agreed to by the parties. Damages analysis due by May 9, 2025, if not previously provided consistent with the deadline agreed to by the parties. Joinder of parties due by May 9, 2025. Amended pleadings due by May 9, 2025. Responses to amended pleadings due by May 30, 2025. Designation and reports of expert witnesses on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof due by Oct. 3, 2025. Depositions of expert witnesses on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof shall be completed by Nov. 14, 2025. Designation and reports of expert witnesses on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof due by Nov. 14, 2025. Depositions of expert witnesses on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof shall be completed by Dec. 19, 2025. Depositions of fact witnesses shall be completed by December 19, 2025. All discovery shall close by Dec. 19, 2025. Class certification motion due by Jan. 16, 2026. If, after the close of discovery, the parties wish to meet with a Magistrate Judge to discuss settlement, the parties may jointly file such a request by Jan. 23, 2026. Dispositive motions due by Feb. 13, 2026. Responses to dispositive motions due by March 6, 2026. Any replies to responses to dispositive motions due by March 20, 2026. Joint trial memorandum, which shall include, inter alia, any and all motions in limine, is due by April 17, 2026, or thirty (30) days after the Court rules on any dispositive motions. Trial ready date is May 18, 2026, or thirty (30) days after the Joint Trial Memorandum is filed. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X1KTcQ at no extra charge.[CC] MARTECH STACK: Byrnside Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martech Stack LLC. The case is styled as Yolanda Byrnside, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Martech Stack LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60828-RS (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MarTech -- https://martechstack.ai/ -- is on a mission to educate marketers about marketing technology and strategy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com MCLANE CO: Class Cert Bid Filing in McGowan Continued to July 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paris McGowan v. McLane Company Inc. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00689-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting the Plaintiff's ex parte application to extend deadline to file motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Scheduling Order's deadline to file a motion for class certification is continued from April 29, 2025, to July 7, 2025. The Opposition is due no later than Aug. 18, 2025, and the Reply no later than Sept. 15, 2025. The Plaintiff would be irreparably prejudiced if she were required to file a "less-than fulsome motion" for class certification before having sufficient time review the discovery documents that Defendants only recently produced. Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is without fault in creating the circumstances requiring ex parte relief, as the Defendants refused to provide substantive responses to the Plaintiff's discovery requests until Magistrate Judge Rocconi ruled on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Responses. McLane is an American wholesale supply chain services company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lZwfaV at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: A.A. v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.A. v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00141-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the A.A. 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 A.A. 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=NcqnGu at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Arede v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arede v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00204-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring Arede 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 Arede 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=dc8pyX at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Baker v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baker v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00096-DC-AC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Baker 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 Baker 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=RfHdT6 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3149: Brown v. Powerschool Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown et al v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., the Hon. Judge Karen K. Caldwell entered an order transferring the Brown 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 Brown 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=WPgEMb at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL EXPRESS: Cuevas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Celia Cuevas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDICAL EXPRESS AMBULANCE INC. D/B/A MEDEX AMBULANCE, Case No. 1:25-cv-04735 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") (or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 14, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information 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. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. 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 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 is a former employee of Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare provider that specializes in ambulance and emergency medical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Domenica M. Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314-833-4827 Email: drusso@peifferwolf.com bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Jamil Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENA JAMIL, SAMAAL ROBERSON, AND SHIDEH KHABAZIAN, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08130-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on July 11, 2025, before the Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, will move, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), to certify a class defined as: "All owners, as of Aug. 23, 2022, of Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with the M274-LS engine, also known as the M274 High Output, ("Class Vehicles") who purchased or leased their vehicles in California." Excluded from this class definition are Defendant, its officers and employees, as well as all judicial officers assigned to this case and their staff. Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FfWLYB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 201 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 Facsimile: (866) 832-5852 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. Ian D. Krupar, Esq. THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC 2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 E-mail: ralph@rbk-law.com ian@rbk-law.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Jamil Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENA JAMIL, SAMAAL ROBERSON, AND SHIDEH KHABAZIAN, On Behalf of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08130-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal in connection with their motion for class certification. The portions of the supporting Memorandum and exhibits for which a sealed filing is sought are all documents that Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC has designated "Confidential" under the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action or quote or reference such designated documents. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek leave to file the following under seal: 1. Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification. 2. Unredacted Version of the Expert Report of David Roth In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (identified as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Roy A. Katriel In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification); 3. Unredacted Version of the Expert Report of Edward M. Stockton In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (identified as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Roy A. Katriel In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification); 4. Entirety of Exhibits 4, and 6-8 to the Declaration of Roy A. Katriel In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification. The Sealed Declaration of Roy A. Katriel and a [Proposed] Order are being filed herewith. Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mVNvzo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 2262 Carmel Valley Rd., Suite 201 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 363-3333 Facsimile: (866) 832-5852 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from securities fraud class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 13, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserted Section 10(b) and 20(a) securities fraud claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers and sellers of the Company's stock from December 7, 2020, through June 23, 2023. The complaint alleged that the Company's public disclosures in SEC filings and on earnings calls were false and/or misleading. On February 27, 2024, the Court entered an order appointing Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiff. On April 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint including William Ballhaus and David Farnsworth as additional defendants and amended the class period to February 3, 2021 through February 6, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2024, and after the plaintiffs' filed their opposition motion and the Company filed its reply to their opposition, a hearing on the motion was conducted by the Court on July 24, 2024. On July 24, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and permitted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed for leave to amend their complaint on August 23, 2024, the Company filed its opposition motion on September 6th, the plaintiffs filed their response brief on September 17, 2024, and the Company filed its reply on September 30, 2024. On October 17, 2024, the Company received a shareholder derivative demand alleging the same claims as those covered in the federal securities class action. On November 14, 2024, the Company and the shareholder entered into a tolling agreement on this derivative demand. On February 20, 2025, the court issued an order that dismissed claims relating to 14 of 17 challenged statements and that allowed the remaining three challenged statements to proceed. The court also dismissed Messrs. Ruppert and Farnsworth from the lawsuit. The parties are beginning the discovery process. On March 4, 2025, the Company received an additional derivative demand from another shareholder alleging the same claims as those covered in the federal securities class action and the first derivative demand. Subject to the terms of the Company's by-laws and applicable Massachusetts law, Mr. Aslett, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Ballhaus, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer, are indemnified by the Company for this matter. The Company believes the claims in the complaint and derivative demands are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. It is too early to determine what responsibility, if any, the Company will have for this matter. Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that delivers processing power for the most demanding aerospace and defense missions. Its end-to-end processing platform enables a broad range of aerospace and defense programs, optimized for mission success in some of the most challenging and demanding environments. MERRILL LYNCH: Milligan Appeals Summ. Judgment Ruling in ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY MILLIGAN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kelly Milligan, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00440-KDB-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. This is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to recover the deferred compensation that financial advisors (FAs) did not receive in violation of ERISA when they left Merrill Lynch. On Sept. 30, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Kenneth D. Bell granted on Mar. 11, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Kelly Milligan v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 25-1385, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KELLY MILLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: John Saul Edwards, Jr., Esq. AJAMIE LLP Pennzoil Place, South Tower 711 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-1600 Defendants-Appellees MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq. Matthew A. Russell, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1158 (312) 324-1138 (312) 324-1771 - and – Zachary Lynn McCamey, Esq. Robert Ashley Muckenfuss, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 201 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 343-2070 (704) 343-2052 MOONLIGHT PACKING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moonlight Packing Company, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Osorio Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Moonlight Packing Company, LLC, Case No. 25CECG01634 (Cal. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty., April 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited - Other Employment." Moonlight Companies -- https://www.moonlightcompanies.com/ -- is home to multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art packing facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY APLC 249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802-4899 Phone: 949-208-3400 Fax: 562-590-8400 Email: jose@garaylaw.com MV FOODS: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAIDEN LAWMAN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. MV FOODS, LLC, and MATTHEW TODD VOGEL, Case No. 4:24-cv-01053-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and a Missouri class action for settlement purposes, (2) preliminarily approving the Parties' class action settlement for settlement purposes, (3) approving the proposed Class Notice and Claim Form to be sent to putative class members, and (4) scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Parties' class action settlement agreement to occur at least 100 days following the Court's order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement. The Plaintiff filed this collective action against the Defendants on July 30, 2024. Haiden Lawman was employed by the Defendants as a pizza delivery driver and alleged that the Defendants failed to properly reimburse delivery drivers for expenses, violating their minimum wage obligations. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "All delivery drivers who worked for the Defendants during the Release Period [Oct. 23, 2021 through the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval] at Papa John's Stores owned and operated by the Defendants in Missouri." MV Foods is engaged in the wholesale distribution of a general line of groceries. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nsGyk2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com wage@foresterhaynie.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory D. Ballew, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4900 Main Street, Suite 650 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 460-1236 E-mail: gballew@fisherphillips.com NASCO INDUSTRIAL: Cyphers Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, AWHA ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA CYPHERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NASCO INDUSTRIAL SERVICES AND SUPPLY LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00221 (D. Nev., May 2, 2025) is a class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages from NISS for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Nevada law, and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act. NISS employed Cyphers as one of its Hourly Employee. NISS pays Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, NISS does not pay Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, NISS requires Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees to meet with the crew and foreman coming off shift, complete a daily shift report, attend line out meetings, and be suited out in their protective clothing and safety gear, "off the clock" prior the start of their shifts, says the suit. Likewise, NISS requires Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees to meet with the crew and foreman coming on shift, attend safety meetings, wash-up, and change out of their safety gear and protective clothing "off the clock" following the end of their shifts. But NISS does not pay Cyphers and the other Hourly Employees for this "off the clock" time before and after their shifts, the suit asserts. NISS employed Cyphers from approximately January 2023 until December 2024, including in Nevada, Utah, and Alaska. [BN] The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly NISS employees during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action." The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NE 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and- Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and- Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com NATIONAL HOCKEY: Court Sets Class Certification Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA DIVISION et al., v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02135-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pre-trial deadline as follows: Event Date Fact Discovery Opens 30 days after the Court rules on Defendants' dispositive motions Deadline for Joining Additional 45 days after the Court Parties: rules on Defendants' dispositive motions Plaintiffs' Class Certification 8 months after the Court Motion and Close of Fact Discovery: rules on Defendants' dispositive motions Class Certification Opposition: 10 months after the Court rules on Defendants' dispositive motions Class Certification Reply: 11 months after the Court rules on Defendants' dispositive motions Hearing on Class Certification To be set by the Court Motion: after briefing completed National Hockey League is a professional ice hockey league in North America composed of 32 teams – 25 in the United States and 7 in Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ucHY7 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL RAILROAD: Chappelle Seeks Initial OK of $1.2MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GORDON CHAPPELLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, V. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-02667-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 3, 2025, will move for preliminary approval of the proposed Class settlement. On Jan. 4,20204, the Plaintiff filed a putative wage and hour Class Action Complaint with the Los Angeles Superior Court for various alleged Labor Code violations and Unfair Competition. On April 2,2024, the Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court, Central District of California. A summary of the terms of the settlement are as follows: -- Defendant will stipulate, for purposes of this settlement only, to certification of a class defined as: "All persons employed by Defendant in California and classified as non-exempt mechanical employee during the period Jan. 4,2021 through the date when the total workweeks reaches 73,585 workweeks." -- Defendant will pay a maximum of $ 1,200,000, which is referred to as herein as the Gross Settlement Amount. -- Class Members will be paid their proportionate share based on the total workweeks worked during the class period. -- The Settlement Administration costs of $9,000 will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount. -- Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount. -- Class Counsel will apply for, and Defendant will not oppose, attorneys' fees not to exceed $400,000, which represents one- third of the Gross Settlement Amount and litigation costs not to exceed $20,000. -- Defendant's employer's share of payroll taxes will be funded by the Defendant in addition to the Gross Settlement Amount. -- Class Counsel will apply for, and Defendant will not oppose, an enhancement award, not to exceed $10,000 for Plaintiff. The enhancement award will be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount. National Railroad provides transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CL3xiw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. De Sario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310)553-3603 E-mail: nmounTiand@nouiTOandlawfirm.com idesario@nounnandlawfirm.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Filing in Manley Due Feb. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETHANY MANLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of persons, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Case No. 3:25-cv-00159 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by May 14, 2025. 2. The parties shall complete all discovery requests by Nov. 29, 2025, and all depositions by Jan. 13, 2026. 3. All dispositive motions, except those filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits or other exhibits, and a memorandum in support of such motions shall be filed by Feb. 13, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification by Feb. 6, 2026. Nationstar Mortgage is a home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yANFD1 at no extra charge.[CC] NCAA: Court Junks Chalmers Amended Complaint w/ Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO CHALMERS et al., v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION A/K/A NCAA et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05008-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order granting the NCAA's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (AC). The dismissal is with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dockets 94 and 107, and to close this case, the Court says. The Plaintiffs have not pled facts that during the many years between agreeing to relinquish their NILs and filing this lawsuit, they were unaware, and that it was impossible for them reasonably to have learned, that they had a potential antitrust claim. The Court therefore denies the Plaintiffs' bid to rescue their claims on this basis. The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on July 1, 2016. On Oct. 18, 2024, the NCAA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). On October 21, 2024, the Court directed plaintiffs to file any amended complaint or opposition by November 8, 2024. On November 14, 2024, after correcting a filing error, plaintiffs filed the AC. On December 2, 2024, the NCAA moved to dismiss the AC under Rule 12(b)(6). On December 17, 2024, plaintiffs opposed. On December 23, 2024, the NCAA replied. On January 27, 2025, the Court heard argument. The putative class action is the latest in a series of lawsuits by collegiate student-athletes NCAA and its members and athletic conferences. These cases have involved claims for monetary and injunctive relief arising from the NCAA's use of the student-athletes' names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”) in advertisements and for other commercial purposes. The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are 16 former collegiate student-athletes. Each played for an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (SBF) or a DI men's basketball team before June 15, 2016. The NCAA was founded in 1906 by 62 institutional members to regulate intercollegiate sports and protect student-athletes' safety. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OFdlpl at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Satchell Loses Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SATCHELL, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11119-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Woods entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court notes that the Court has received Plaintiff's complaint with Plaintiff's allegations contained therein. Therefore, Plaintiff need not keep sending letters repeating these same allegations. If Plaintiff wishes to amend his previous allegations with new or additional allegations, Plaintiff must receive the Court's permission or must get the consent of the defendants. If Plaintiff would like to request permission, he must make a motion to amend the complaint and attach the proposed amended complaint. If this amended complaint were accepted, it would replace, not supplement, his original complaint, which means that his previous allegations would be deemed withdrawn if they are not repeated in his new amended complaint. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff by certified mail. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pSasrw at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Clouse Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN E. CLOUSE, STEVEN S. KAWAKAMI, DOUGLAS E. HOFFELT, and MICHAEL WINKLER, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, NORTHROP GRUMMAN BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1–17, Case No. (May 2, 2025) alleges Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions, and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. As Plan fiduciaries, the Defendants were obligated to act for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and beneficiaries and ensure they act loyally and prudently when administering the Plan. These fiduciary duties are the "highest known to the law." However, rather than using the Plan's forfeiture assets to pay all Plan administrative expenses, as expressly required by the terms of the Plan, the Defendants used Plan assets to benefit themselves by reducing NG's employer matching contributions using the Plan’s forfeiture assets, asserts the suit. Brian E. Clouse is domiciled in Oviedo, Florida, is a citizen of the State of Florida, and is a participant in the Plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(7). Mr. Clouse began employment with NG in 2016. Mr. Clouse worked in the Manned Aircraft Design Center of Excellence as a Senior Principal Engineer – Systems Architect, and began investing in the Plan in 2016. The Defendant is a global aerospace and defense technology company that delivers products, services, and other solutions to the United States Department of Defense, and to the American intelligence community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Patrick Roche, Esq. CAMERON INGERSOLLROCHE PLLC 4100 Monument Corner Drive, Suite 420 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 460-9343 Facsimile: (703) 273-8897 E-mail: sroche@cirlaw.com - and - Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Nathan Stump, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Terrence W. Scudieri, Jr. , Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com aschlichter@uselaws.com nstump@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com tscudieri@uselaws.com OPEN LENDING: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in W.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Bradley v. Open Lending Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00650, on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Open Lending Corporation ("Open Lending" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LPRO) securities between February 24, 2022 and March 31, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period") pursuing claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On March 17, 2025, before the market opened, Open Lending disclosed that it would be unable to timely file its Annual Report for 2024 as it "require[d] additional time to finalize its accounting and review processes specifically related to its profit share revenue and related contract assets." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.40, or 9.28%, to close at $3.91 per share on March 17, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to fall the following trading day, declining $0.42, or 10.87%, to close at $3.49 on March 18, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on March 31, 2025, after the market closed, Open Lending released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing quarterly revenue of negative $56.9 million due in part to "a $81.3 million reduction in estimated profit share revenues related to business in historic vintages" … "primarily due to heightened delinquencies and corresponding defaults associated with loans originated in 2021 through 2024." The Company identified "three factors primarily contributed to this reduction of estimated profit share." First, a "deterioration of the Company's 2021 and 2022 vintages" resulting in loans which were "worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances." This factor accounted for "approximately 40% of the Company's total negative change." Second, the Company "identified two cohorts of borrowers, borrowers with credit builder tradelines and borrowers with fewer positive tradelines, that caused its 2023 and 2024 vintages to underperform." This factor "accounted for approximately 40% of the Company's total negative change." Third, the Company revealed "continued elevated delinquencies and ultimate defaults" which "accounted for approximately 20% of the Company's total negative change." Additionally, the Company disclosed a net loss of $144 million, due to the Company being "negatively impacted by the recording of a valuation allowance on [its] deferred tax assets of $86.1 million, which increased [its] income tax expense during the period." In a separate press release, the Company also announced that it had appointed a new Chief Executive Officer and a new Chief Operating Officer, effective immediately, both of whom would be replacing Charles D. Jehl, who had been operating as the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer simultaneously. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.59 or 57.61%, to close at $1.17 per share on April 1, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of the Company's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially misleading statements regarding the Company's profit share revenue; (3) failed to disclose the Company's 2021 and 2022 vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the underperformance of the Company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Open Lending securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150, Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] OREGON: Swindler Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN LLOYD SWINDLER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Allen Lloyd Swindler, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lieutenant Clayton Ruble, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-01465-AA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of prisoner's civil rights. The Plaintiff and the Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On Mar. 26, 2025, Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment. The Court held that the Plaintiff fails to present evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment. The appellate case is entitled Swindler v. Ruble, et al., Case No. 25-2338, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 21, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ALLEN LLOYD SWINDLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees Lieutenant CLAYTON RUBLE, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth A. Jones, Esq. Aaron Paul Hisel, Esq. CAPITOL LEGAL SERVICES 901 Capitol Street NE Salem, OR 97301 PENNEY OPCO: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 18, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELLE ARGUELLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00981-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and JCPenney's motion for summary judgment to July 18, 2025 at 1:30pm, or a later date convenient to the Court. On April 18, 2025, the Court entered an order setting a hearing of Friday, May 16, 2025, at 1:30pm on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and JCPenney's motion for summary judgment. JCPenney's counsel have a pre-existing conflict on May 16, 2025, and therefore contacted Plaintiff’s counsel about this joint motion to continue the hearing. Penney is a major department store chain in the United States. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leExn2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com The Defendants are represented by: Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. Benjamin D. Brooks SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com bbrooks@sheppardmullin.com PHH MORTGAGE: Faces Colby TILA Class Suit Over Servicing Errors --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE A. COLBY, SR., on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00769 (E.D. Va., May 2, 2025) arises as a result of PHH's servicing errors. Mr. Colby alleges two class claims against PHH. First, Mr. Colby alleges a class claim under the Truth in Lending Act for failing to credit payments to Mr. Colby's and the putative class members' loans when PHH received them. Second, Mr. Colby alleges a class claim for breach of the Deed of Trust for failing to provide the required notice that it planned to inspect Mr. Colby's and the putative class members' property before doing so. Because PHH's conduct in crediting payments and ordering property inspections and appraisals appear to be based on PHH's standard procedures, Mr. Colby believes that these claims are appropriate for class treatment, says the Plaintiff The Plaintiff also alleges individual claims against PHH under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for failing to property respond to his Qualified Written Request and for breaching his Deed of Trust by failing to provide him with the required foreclosure notices. Mr. Colby, an 85-year-old retiree, is facing imminent foreclosure of his home, where he has lived since 1966, because of PHH's pervasive mismanagement of his reverse mortgage. Like many elderly individuals, Mr. Colby is exempt from paying real estate taxes because of his age and income. Mr. Colby applies for this exemption each year in the jurisdiction where his home is located—Fairfax County. Due to a health issue in 2024, Mr. Colby was late submitting his exemption paperwork and did not receive the exemption until October 2024. PHH paid the real estate taxes that Fairfax County assessed to Mr. Colby's home on July 31, 2024. After the exemption was approved, however, Fairfax County promptly refunded the tax payment to PHH's tax vendor, CoreLogic. CoreLogic returned the funds to PHH, who refused to credit them to Mr. Colby's account and instead marked Mr. Colby's loan as delinquent. PHH continued in its refusal to credit Mr. Colby's loan, even after Mr. Colby submitted a Qualified Written Request asking PHH to investigate and correct its servicing errors. Then, in breach of Mr. Colby's Deed of Trust, PHH started conducting inspections on Mr. Colby's home without any notice to him. And even though these inspections violated the Deed of Trust, PHH charged them to Mr. Colby's loan balance, the suit further asserts. PHH was a mortgage loan servicing company governed by RESPA and TILA.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: GEORGE A. COLBY, SR. Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: J.I. Suit Transferred to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned J. I. by and through her Next Friend M.S., A. J. by and through her Next Friend M.S., O. S. by and through her Next Friend M.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool, Case No. 4:25-cv-04006 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on April 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00992-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 The Defendant is represented by: James D Lawrence, Esq. Grace E. Martinez, Esq. BRYAN AND CAVE 1200 Main Street, Suite 3300 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 374-3200 Email: jdlawrence@bryancave.com - and - Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 315-6300 Email: Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com - and - Monica Mleczko, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Phone: (617) 235-4082 POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Zarif Suit Transferred to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Towfeq Zarif, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00259 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-00980-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: Joseph W. Cotchett, Jr., Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com - and - Thomas Eric Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 Email: toml@hbsslaw.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 RAUL LABRADOR: Court Certifies Provisional Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IDAHO ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS; THE ALLIANCE OF IDAHO; A.M.R.; L.M.C.; M.S.; W.G.C.; and J.R.B.M., v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-AKB (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Amanda Brailsford entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary restraining order, provisional class certification, and preliminary injunction. The Court certifies the following provisional classes: i. The Entry Class includes all aliens, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101, who may be subject to I.C. section 18- 9003; and ii. The Reentry Class includes all aliens, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101, who may be subject to I.C. section 18- 9004. The Court enjoins all Defendants, including their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and any person acting in concert or participation with them, from enforcing Idaho Code sections 18-9003, 18-9004. The Court appoints counsel for the Plaintiffs as counsel for the provisional classes. The bond requirement under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is waived. The Court concludes Individual Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a "constitutional interest" in not being prosecuted under an allegedly federally preempted law. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have shown they are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that federal law preempts the challenged offenses of Illegal Entry and Illegal Reentry and that factor weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bSkXib at no extra charge.[CC] RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Venet Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nik Venet, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 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. 2:25-cv-03772. 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: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com - and - S. Nadine Agharezaei, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.239.9800 Facsimile: 213.239.9045 Email: nadine.agharezaei@ogletree.com RITUAL ZERO PROOF: Cantore Sues Over Deceptive Junk Fees -------------------------------------------------------- Philip Cantore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RITUAL ZERO PROOF and ROUTE APP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04677 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2025), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants Route App, Inc. ("Route") and Ritual Zero Proof ("RZP") (together, "Defendants") arising from their deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts. When consumers browse products on e-commerce websites, the e-commerce website will advertise the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because e-commerce retailers such as RZP, working with Route, surreptitiously add junk fees to consumer purchases, including Route's so-called "Shipping Protection" fee. The assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since: Route and RZP sneak these fees into consumers' shopping carts; the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering retailer promises for "free" or flat-rate shipping false; the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendants' deception. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Defendants' deceptive tactics. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, Defendants deceive consumers and gain an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges. To wit, other major e-commerce sites do not assess such a fee, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased three beverage bottles from RZP's website on September 17, 2024. RZP is retailer of non-alcoholic beverages headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, California 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com SHADE STORE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file under seal certain portions of its (1) opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, (2) motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts, and (3) exhibits. The Defendants also requests that the Court issue an Order sealing limited portions of its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts, and exhibits filed in connection with the opposition and Daubert Motion. Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes, and blinds. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2m7J51 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Kevin Jakopchek, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com kevin.jakopchek@lw.com SOMNIA INC: Class Settlement in Chabak Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE CHABAK, ARMANDO CARRASCO, RANDY POLK, KELLY WILSON, THOMAS BOOTH HARRIS, SCOTT WEISCOPE, LAVINA HENDERSON, JEREMY HENDERSON, and RAYCINE SOMMERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOMNIA INC., ANESTHESIA SERVICES OF SAN JOAQUIN P.C., PALM SPRINGS ANESTHESIA SERVICES P.C., RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF IL P.C., RESOURCE ANESTHESIOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF NM INC., and ANESTHESIA ASSOCIATES OF EL PASO, P.A., Case No. 7:22-cv-9341-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d) and has personal jurisdiction over the Parties, Class Members, and California Subclass Members where the Class consists of: "All natural persons residing in the United States whose Personal Information was compromised in the Security Incident." The California Subclass consists of: "All natural persons residing in California whose Personal Information was compromised in the Security Incident." 2. The Court finds that the notice provisions set forth under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1715, were complied with in this Action. 3. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Irene Chabak, Armando Carrasco, Kelly Wilson, Thomas Booth Harris, Scott Weiscope, Lavina Henderson, Jeremy Henderson, Randy Polk, and Raycine Sommers as Class Representatives for the Class. The Court designates Raycine Sommers, Kelly Wilson, and Thomas Booth Harris as Subclass Representatives for the California Subclass. 4. The Court appoints Class Counsel to represent the Class and California Subclass. Somnia is a full service clinical anesthesia solutions partner founded in 1996. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DQVkXy at no extra charge.[CC] STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Shojaei Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mohammadreza Milad Shojaei, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, ASHLEY FURNITURE, ASHLEY HOMESTORE, ASHLEY HOMESTORES LTD., THE ASHLEY COMPANIES, Case No. 25STCV10906 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 11, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." STONELEDGE FURNITURE is a furniture retailer located in Colton, California.[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 STRYKER CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Graham Due April 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GRAHAM, v. STRYKER CORPORATION ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01411-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order as follows: -- Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion April 6, 2026 for class certification: -- Deadline for Defendant to file an May 11, 2026 opposition: -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file a June 1, 2026 reply: -- Expert disclosures: Oct. 26, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosure: Nov. 16, 2026 -- Close of expert discovery: Dec. 21, 2026 Stryker is an American multinational medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lEKc5Q at no extra charge.[CC] SUTHERLAND GLOBAL: Renewed Bid to Seal Docs Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY SAVAGE, DAVID LEINDLEIN, RONALD COHEN, AND JAMES SHERBURNE, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Plan, v. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., CVAGS, LLC d/b/a CLEARVIEW GROUP, SHILPA KONDA, DIANA MOHORTER, LORI D’AMBROSIO, KATHLEEN DECANN, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 6:19-cv-06840-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Wolford entered an order denying without prejudice Sutherland's renewed motion to seal. Even though the prior motion to seal was denied for failure to provide sufficient support for the request, Sutherland's motion continues to fail to meet the basic requirements for sealing these documents. Nor has Sutherland explained why the documents require sealing in full without any effort to partially redact them to limit the scope of the sealed filings. Given the two opportunities to support the requested sealing, and yet failure to comply with the legal requirements for doing so, the Court now denies the motion to seal with prejudice. In its motion, Sutherland seeks to file under seal unredacted versions of the following documents: (1) Exhibit 1 to Mulvehill Declaration in support of Sutherland’s Motion to Seal dated December 18, 2023. (2) Exhibit 4 to Mulvehill Declaration in support of Sutherland's Motion to Seal dated December 18, 2023. (3) Exhibit 5 to Mulvehill Declaration in support of Sutherland's Motion to Seal dated December 18, 2023. On Dec. 18, 2023, Sutherland moved to seal certain documents submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed their own motion to seal on Jan. 8, 2024. On Aug. 28, 2024, the Court denied both motions to seal without prejudice, concluding that although the documents sought to be sealed were covered by the scope of the protective order entered in the case, the parties did not provide any independent justification for sealing them in connection with the Court's determination on class certification. Sutherland operates as a digital transformation company. A copy of the Court's decision and order dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4mPzOM at no extra charge.[CC] TRAILS CAROLINA: Residential Program "Misleading," Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Pryor of Spectrum Local News, reports that Trails Carolina, a former wilderness therapy facility outside of Asheville, North Carolina, is facing another class action lawsuit. The firm Justice Law Collaborative filed the suit, which claims the program misled parents, charged outrageous fees and created an abusive environment. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the now-shuttered camp. The complaint details how Trails Carolina allegedly profited off of the promotion of its wilderness and residential program and details how numerous materials were intentionally left out of its marketing, which misled parents into a false sense of security. It also claims the camp did not disclose public incidents of prior abuse, neglect and food and clothing deprivation. The law firm said several parents have reached out and shared their "horrific stories" of what their child witnessed while in the care of Trails Carolina. The program is no longer in operation following the February 2024 death of a 12-year-old while in the care of Trails Carolina. The child had only been at the facility for 24 hours, according to the medical examiner's report. The death was ruled a homicide. No criminal charges were brought against the camp. The 2024 death was the second reported death at Trails since it opened in 2008. Reports show in 2014, a 17-year-old died after attempting to run away. The property is currently up for sale. Spectrum News 1 reached out to the camp for comment on the newly filed lawsuit, but did not hear back in time for this report. The camp provided the following statement back in February as the one-year anniversary of the camper's death rolled around: "The loss of a child is an incredible tragedy. Our hearts have been, and will continue to be, with the family and all those affected. We hope that now, a year later, the family and everyone involved will finally be given the space to process and heal. "Trails Carolina provided clinical services to over 2,700 students over the years, many of whom report positive, life-changing experiences. We hope these positive stories may also receive the recognition they deserve." What You Need To Know -- The lawsuit filed by Justice Law Collaborative claims the program misled parents, charged outrageous fees and created an abusive environment -- The law firm said parents have reached out and shared their "horrorific stories" of what their child witnessed while in the care of Trails Carolina -- The program is no longer in operation and the property is currently up for sale [GN] TURNER INTEGRITY: Blazio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Storm Blazio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TURNER INTEGRITY CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00619 (E.D. Wis., April 29, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Resident Care Assistant working at its Thorp, Wisconsin location. The Defendant is an assisted living facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com UNILEVER UNITED: Sued Over Misleading "Natural" Product Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- Rochdi Rais, writing for USA Herald, reports that Unilever and its U.S. distributor, Conopco, are facing a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over allegedly misleading "natural" labeling on popular personal care brands Love Beauty & Planet and Dove Men+Care. The lawsuit, filed by California consumers Jeffrey Kent, Monica Burrola, and Nitaya McGee, claims that Unilever falsely advertised several products as containing "90% naturally derived ingredients." In reality, the plaintiffs argue, the products contain only 80–85% ingredients derived from natural sources, with the remainder made up of industrially processed chemicals like sodium laureth sulfate and behentrimonium chloride. "These products are composed predominantly of ingredients made through chemical processes, not of natural origin," the complaint states. The suit lists 26 personal care items—shampoos, conditioners, and moisturizers—allegedly sold under misleading labels and website descriptions. The plaintiffs assert that consumers paid a premium based on these "natural" claims, which violate California's consumer protection, advertising, and fair trade laws. The lawsuit seeks a jury trial, punitive damages, restitution, attorney fees, and an injunction barring Unilever from continuing these marketing practices. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Provisional Class in UFW Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED FARM WORKERS, OSCAR MORALES CISNEROS, WILDER MUNGUIA ESQUIVEL, YOLANDA AGUILERA MARTINEZ, JUAN VARGAS MENDEZ, and MARIA GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ ESPINOSA, v. KRISTI NOEM, as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; PETE R. FLORES, as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Border Patrol; MICHAEL W. BANKS, as Chief of U.S. Border Patrol; and GREGORY K. BOVINO, as Chief Patrol Agent for El Centro Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Thurston entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification is granted, and the classes are defined as: Suspicionless Stop Class: "All persons since Jan. 6, 2025, who have been or will be subjected to a detentive stop by Border Patrol in this district without a pre-stop, individualized assessment of reasonable suspicion whether the person (1) is engaged in an offense against the United States or (2) is a noncitizen unlawfully in the United States." Warrantless Arrest Class: "All persons since Jan. 6, 2025, who have been arrested or will be arrested in this district by Border Patrol without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses a flight risk. 2. Oscar Morales Cisneros, Wilder Munguia Esquivel, and Yolanda Aguilera Martinez are appointed as class representatives for both the Suspicionless Stop and Warrantless Arrest Classes. 3. Bree Bernwanger, Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, Lauren Davis, and Shilpi Agarwal, Mayra Joachin, Eva Bitran, and Oliver Ma, Brisa Velazquez Oatis, Ajay S. Krishnan, Franco Muzzio, Zainab O. Ramahi, and Julia L. Greenberg are appointed as Class Counsel for the provisional classes. 4. The Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, as follows: a. Border Patrol is enjoined from conducting detentive stops in this District unless, pre-stop, the detaining agent has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is a noncitizen who is present within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. b. Border Patrol is enjoined from effecting warrantless arrests in this District unless, pre-arrest, the arresting agent has probable cause to believe that the noncitizen being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. c. Any Border Patrol agent who conducts a detentive stop in this District shall, as soon as practicable, document the facts and circumstances surrounding the stop in a narrative form. The Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief related to detentive stops and arrests by Border Patrol. The Plaintiffs state claims against the defendants for violations of 8 U.S.C. section 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. section 287.8(c)(2)(ii), the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jbhg2B at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE NEMETH-GREENLEAF, JASON JUDKINS, JON MICHEL, DONNA NEMETH, AND MICHAEL RIFER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; CHARLES EZELL; AMANDA SCALES; BRIAN BJELDE; GREGORY BARBACCIA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT BESSENT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00407-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file a motion for class certification under LCvR 23.1(b) to Nov. 12, 2025. The original deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint was April 19, 2025. On April 14, 2025, the Defendants moved the Court to extend that deadline to May 19, 2025. The current deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification is May 12, 2025. Discovery is necessary for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification since, when Plaintiffs move, they must establish the elements of Rule 23 with evidence. On April 8 and April 11, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs and for Defendants conferred about the Plaintiffs' extension request. Counsel for Defendants represented that Defendants do not oppose this request. United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency responsible for managing the U.S. federal civil service. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NsJvTZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. Cort T. Carlson, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 919-5852 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com ccarlson@tzlegal.com - and - Gregory McGillivary, Esq. Sara L. Faulman, Esq. John W. Stewart, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com slf@mselaborlaw.com jws@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Suit Over 401(K) Misallocation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Flaia Furlan Nunes, writing for Housing Wire, reports that United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging misuse and misallocation of assets within its 401(k) retirement plan. The company has called the suit a "baseless claim." Filed Monday, April 26, in a Michigan district court, the lawsuit accuses UWM of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by using plan assets to reduce future employer contributions rather than reducing the plan expenses. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as violations of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules. The case was first reported by Bloomberg. In a statement to HousingWire, a UWM spokesperson wrote that the company is "one of many publicly traded companies that have been sued by the plaintiffs' bar challenging a long-standing practice of 401(k) plan sponsors." According to the lawsuit, UWM's 401(k) plan had 7,231 participants and $149.4 million in assets under management as of December 31, 2023 -- placing it in the top 1% of more than 730,000 retirement plans nationwide in terms of assets and participation. In 2023, UWM matched 50% of the first 3% of a participant's eligible compensation deferred, up to $2,500. Employees are fully vested in employer contributions after five years of service. The plaintiffs claim that UWM improperly used plan forfeitures -- nonvested funds forfeited when employees leave the company -- to offset employer contributions rather than covering plan expenses. "The allegations do not concern the compensation received by the plan's service providers and investment advisors or that the plan Committee selected imprudent plan investments," the court filing clarifies. The plaintiffs estimate the plan sustained cumulative losses of $1.3 million between 2019 and 2023 as a result of the alleged mismanagement. The complaint was brought by three former UWM senior account executives -- Kristopher Lapko, Alan Tucsok, and Becky Forbush -- on behalf of themselves and other plan participants. They allege that UWM failed to act prudently, improperly used forfeitures for its own benefit, and did not adequately monitor those responsible for administering the plan. "These injuries diminished the savings in Plaintiffs' retirement accounts in the plan and reduced, dollar for dollar (and more when compounded) plaintiffs' retirement savings," the court document states. A spokesperson for UWM wrote, "Our plan administration is consistent with decades of regulatory guidance that was reaffirmed as recently as 2023. We plan to vigorously defend this baseless claim." The plaintiffs have filed five claims, including breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence. They are seeking restoration of plan losses, disgorgement of profits allegedly earned through the misuse of plan assets, and other relief. [GN} UNKNOWN BATHS: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNKNOWN BATHS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02442 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.abathhouse.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 26, 2025, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website, www.abathhouse.com, to purchase a spa membership. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.abathhouse.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com VIRTUSA CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sugg Extended to June 25 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sugg, v. Virtusa Corp, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-08036-GC-JTQ (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Justin T. Quinn entered an order granting requests a four-week extension to the upcoming May 28, 2025 deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification, extending that deadline to June 25, 2025, and extending the deadline for Defendant's opposition papers to July 23 and Plaintiff's reply papers to August 13. The Plaintiff also seeks a corresponding extension to the dispositive motion deadline, which falls on the same date. Defendant Virtusa Corp. consents to Plaintiff’s request. Virtusa is an American-based global information technology services company that provides digital engineering and technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccQjGh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, LLC. 788 Shrewsbury Avenue Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 E-mail: jonr@jonrudlaw.com - and - Daniel Kotchen, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 468-4014 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com lgrunert@kotchen.com VISION OF HOPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIE CALVACHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC., and FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00053-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 7-day extension of time, through and including May 8, 2025, within which to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff's counsel was contacted via e-mail on April 30, 2025 regarding the requested extension. Counsel for Defendants originally requested a 14-day extension of time. In response, the Plaintiff's counsel objected and noted that he intends to oppose such a request. Thereafter, Counsel for the Defendants proposed a shorter extension of time via e-mail to the Plaintiff's counsel at 10:30 a.m. on April 30, 2025 given their litigation schedules. The Plaintiff's counsel responded and stated that he objected on the grounds that damages will be reduced by every day that passes and noted that he has received reports that Defendant has changed its practice and is now paying interns. This motion is asserted in good faith and not for the purpose of hindrance or delay. On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Conditional Certification. The Defendants intend to respond to the Plaintiff's filing. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's Motion is May 1, 2025. Vision of Hope is the mission support organization in the United States for Evangelical Free Church planting in northern Haiti. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VvQKmR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Alex Emerson, Esq. Betsy Sommers, Esq. COOTS, HENKE & WHEELER, P.C. 255 East Carmel Drive Carmel, IN 46032 VITOL INC: Settlement Class Reps Gets $5K Each ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion and awarding the three Settlement Class Representatives Fricke-Parks Press, Inc., Bogard Construction, Inc., and Ritual Coffee Roasters, $5,000 each. The Court said that it is satisfied the Settlement Class Representatives' individual contributions to this case warrant an incentive award. Further, the requested $5,000 incentive award is reasonable and does not "undermine the adequacy of the class representatives." On March 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards for the representative Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VA29oh at no extra charge.[CC] VSL PHARMA: Starr Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID STARR, et al., v. VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02173-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order as follows: (1) denying the Defendants' motion to exclude; (2) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (3) granting the parties' motions to seal; (4) granting the Defendants’ consent motion to substitute exhibit; and (5) certifying a class action on behalf of the following classes, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: The Nationwide Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in the United States from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Florida Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Florida from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Idaho Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Idaho from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Illinois Class, consisting of “all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Illinois from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Kentucky Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Kentucky from June 1, 2016, through June 19, 2019." The "Massachusetts Class," consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Massachusetts from June 1, 2016, through June 19, 2019." The Michigan Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Michigan from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The New Jersey Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in New Jersey from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Washington Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Washington from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." The Wisconsin Class, consisting of "all persons who purchased VSL#3 in Wisconsin from June 1, 2016 through June 19, 2019." In this putative class action lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants VSL, Leadiant, Alfasigma, Nutrilinea and Centro, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Uniform Commercial Code and state law, by engaging in a scheme to deceive consumers by, among other things, misrepresenting the chemical formulation of a probiotic known as VSL#3. On June 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. VSL provides medical food for the dietary management of patients. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ACoI5d at no extra charge.[CC] WEBER TREE: Escalona Must File Status Update by May 12 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Escalona v. Weber Tree Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-06159 (W.D.N.Y., Filed March 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Meredith A. Vacca entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a status update on the case by no later than May 12, 2025. -- The Court has not received any communication from the Plaintiff since the expiration of the deadline for class certification motions. -- If a further status conference is required, the status update shall include proposed dates and times when counsel for both sides are available. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered on January 12, 2024, "if no class certification motion is filed, plaintiff should promptly advise this Court in writing to request a further status conference to set additional deadlines for completion of fact and expert discovery and filing of dispositive motions." The suit alleges violation of[ the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Investor Class in SEB Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, et al., v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certifying a class of investors defined as: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company common stock between Feb. 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families, the officers, directors, and affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Court further orders that Lead Plaintiff SEB Investment Management AB and additional Plaintiff West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund be appointed as Class Representatives, and orders that Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP shall serve as Class Counsel. A Further Case Management Conference is set for July 17, 2025 02:00 PM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. The Case Management Statement due by July 10, 2025. In addition, the parties are ordered to provide the court with a joint status report regarding the outcome of mediation no later than June 10, 2025. The mediation deadline has been extended to May 30, 2025. This Order resolves ECF 182. The Plaintiffs bring this securities class action against the Defendants, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Wells Fargo & Company is a multinational financial services company that provides banking, investment, and mortgage products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rWluTB at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Parties Seeks to Stay Flores Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01358-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation that the Flores Action be stayed until the earlier of a class certification decision. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Court ordered that Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 3:25-cv-00001-MMC (the Flores Action) was related to In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation, 3:24-cv-01358-MMC pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(a). Wells Fargo subsequently moved to consolidate the Flores Action with In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation and requested the Court order a third amended consolidated complaint be filed. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Wells Fargo's motion to consolidate. The Court consolidated the Flores Action with In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation and denied Wells Fargo's request that a further amended consolidated complaint be filed, citing that an amended complaint was unnecessary because Flores declined to join any forthcoming complaint. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Consolidate. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zzg7HO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C. 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 E-mail: ahernmings@hemmingsandstevens.com - and - Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amanda L. Groves, Esq. Shawn R. Obi, Esq. Angela A. Smedley, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 E-mail: agroves@winston.com sobi@winston.com asmedley@winston.com YA NETWORK: Initial Standing Order Entered In Sabo Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SABO, v. YA NETWORK LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03668-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an initial standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) shall be dismissed from the action without prejudice. The parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings, including trial. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District's website, which also contains the consent form. All discovery matters have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WdO8vL at no extra charge.[CC] ZILLOW INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Due April 6, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, v. ZILLOW INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00048-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and related dates: Trial Date Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline for joining additional parties: June 30, 2025 Motion for class certification due and April 6, 2026 noted on the motion calendar for no earlier than twenty−eight days after filing: Discovery completed by: Sept. 8, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: Aug. 21, 2026 All motions in limine must be filed by Nov. 16, 2026 and noted on the motion calendar for no earlier than fourteen days after filing. Replies will be accepted. Agreed pretrial order due: Dec. 3, 2026 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire Dec. 30, 2026 questions, proposed jury instructions, and trial exhibits due: Zillow is a tech real-estate marketplace company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mebDFW at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***