250513.mbx

250513.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 95 Headlines ABUNDA TECHNOLOGIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says ADOBE INC: Chwe Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ALCOA USA: Files 7th Circuit Appeal in Retirees' Suit ALLIANZ LIFE: Cope Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Class ANGEL LUIS: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert Order in Delgado Suit ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in Smith Suit Gets Final Nod ARAMARK SERVICES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ARBOR SNOWBOARDS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Seeks Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid BARCLAYS BANK: Parker Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania BENEFITS PARTNER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orosco Alleges BLACK & VEATCH: Savoy Sues Over Tower Technicians' Unpaid Wages CALIF BAIL BOND: Court Rejects Lexington, ASC Bid to Recover Docs CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Norton Wins Conditional Certification Bid CASA CRUZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Milosavljevic Says CASTO CORP: Faces Kramarisc Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. CEN-CAL FIRE SYSTEMS: Manjarrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTURY SNACKS: Class Cert Filing in Gomez Due Feb. 23, 2026 CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Johnson Says COCO 7 NAILS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Suit Alleges CONAGRA BRANDS: Gibson Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling CONCORA CREDIT: Seals Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CREDIT SESAME: Fontana Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sapan Due July 18 DAVITA INC: Faces G.I. Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach DONALD TRUMP: Court Holds HIDR Suit in Abeyance DONALD TRUMP: Orr Suit Seeks to Certify Classes DOTDASH MEREDITH: Atwood Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Filing Amended to April 17, 2026 EL POLLO LOCO: Bogavac Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT: Stafford Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ELON MUSK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of USAID Employees ESSENTIA HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. in Kraft Due Oct. 10 EVIG LLC: Kopels Sues Over Supplements' Deceptive Product Marketing EXAMWORKS LLC: Court Allows Smith to Amend Complaint FARMERS GROUP: Hahn Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FCA US: Bid to Reconsider Feb. 11, 2025 Order Tossed FITNESS ALLIANCE: Kazmucha Sues Over Illusory Membership Tiers FONTAINE MODIFICATION: Boyd Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid FORD MOTOR: Hurst Sues Over Sale of Vehicles With Seatbelt Defect FYF-EVE'S LLC: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GEORGIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by June 29 GRINDR INC: Fellows Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties HALESITE LAUNDROMAT: Faces Lizama Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. HARLEM SHAKE: Cantwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HATTEN HOLDINGS: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HEIDARPOUR LAW: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Woodard Suit HESS CORP: Seeks May 19 Extension to File Class Cert Opposition HOLOSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Defective Firearm Sight, Hart Suit Says HOMESITE GROUP: Sigler Seeks Conditional Certification of Action HORIZON BEHAVIORAL: Withers Files Suit in W.D. Virginia HOSPITAL ESPANOL: Faces Rosario Suit Over Private Data Breach HOTELENGINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albines Alleges HP HOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rubio Suit Due Jan. 22, 2026 ICF TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Class Certification in Tomasello Suit IMMACULATE HOME: Class Settlement in Wilson Gets Initial Nod INSPIRE BRANDS: De Ayora Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award IONIC DIGITAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vejseli, et al. Suit ISSM PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sattyakam Alleges ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Can File Supplement in Support of Class Cert J-CO CONCRETE: Jackson Sues Over Worker Misclassification JANCO FS 3: $190K Class Settlement in Garcia-Ortiz Gets Initial Nod JC GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Suit Alleges JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 9 JOHN PAUL: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes KAWASAKI MOTORS: Melendez Balks at Defective Motorcycle Crankshafts KELL & ASSOCIATES: O'Brien Sues Over Unsecured Private Information KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rose Alleges KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whye Says KIM KOVOL: Court Narrows Claims in Mary B, et al. Foster Case Suit LHNH LAVISTA: Lanz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Residents LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal LUCENT HEALTH: Removes Corralejo Suit to M.D. Tenn. L’OREAL USA: Wins Bid to Transfer Snow Case to New York Court MARYLAND: Parties Seek Briefing Schedule for Class Certification MOBILE MEDIC: Seeks May 19 Extension to File Class Cert Response NATIONAL ELECTRIC: Romero Sues Over Labor Code Violations NCAA: $49.25MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod NEVRO CORP: Faces Retana Suit in N.D. Calif. NEWPORT HARBOR: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Osseck Claims NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Stays Class Cert Deadlines NORTH CAROLINA: Motion for TRO Filed in Conley Class Suit NORTH WIND SERVICES: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. California NUEVO SHALON: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Culver Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Capodici Says ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Klingbail Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Norris Sues Over Data Security Failures ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Parker Suit Removed to C.D. California PAPE' GROUP INC: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARKER-HANNIFIN: Naranjo Suit Removed to C.D. California PENINDA FOODS: Faces Telles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. PETE AND PEDRO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Claims PHH MORTGAGE: Bids for Class Certification Due March 25, 2026 PHILLY AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Serge Suit Claims PIPING ROCK: Ama Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Cider Vinegar PITS 33186 CORP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property PRAGER UNIVERSITY: Chandra Sues Over Data Privacy Violation PRESTAMOS CDFI: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Granted in Part PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Bid for Class Certification Tossed PROMENADE PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to the Disabled, Brito Says PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Angulo Class Allegations Tossed RAISING CANE'S: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California RB GLOBAL: Inflates Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says RB GLOBAL: IPCS Corp. Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy RB GLOBAL: IZQ Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing Cartel RB GLOBAL: Sued Over Rental Construction Equipment Monopoly RENTOKIL NORTH: Kanu Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Managers REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Extends Time to File Response REPUBLIC SERVICES: Sanchez Must Amend Complaint by May 14 RESULTS CUSTOMER: Warren Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees RIGHT COAST: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Goldstein Seeks to Reassign Case ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soucek Due Jan. 30, 2026 SEGWAY INC: Faces Hanson Suit in C.D. Calif. SEMICOLON 3RD: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SIG SAUER: Glasscock Allowed Leave to File Class Reply Under Seal SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Tsvetkov Sues Over Share Price Drop SOUNDHOUND INC: Sued Over Unlawfully Stored Biometric Data SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. STATE FARM: Bid Exclude Expert Reports Denied in Gulick Suit STEPHEN BRETT ARMSTRONG: Betts Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina SUBARU OF AMERICA: Eston Bid to Certify Class Terminated TENET FINTECH: Fails to Pay Settlement Installments, Handal Claims THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Faces Suit Over Health Info Disclosure TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou FAC Dismissed with Leave to Amend TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Sues Over Wrongful Termination TRUE BOTANICALS: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TWITCH INTERACTIVE: Blitch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED PARCEL: Teamsters Local Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid UNITED STATES: Doe Suit Seeks Relief From Project 2025 Policy UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid US CLAIMS: Koprowski Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Removed to E.D. California VERISOURCE SERVICES: Almeda Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII VERISOURCE SERVICES: Lamb Sues Over Unprotected Private Info WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Faison Extended to June 20 WASTE MANAGEMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Securities Suit WEBGROUP CZECH: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit WELLS FARGO: Flores Action Stayed Pending Class Cert Ruling WELLSPAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 12 WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Borja Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees WHITE CAP: Seeks Temporary Stay of Class Cert Briefing Schedule WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Taylor Suit Over Inadequate Data Security YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brumfield Alleges YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mott Alleges YALE NEW: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barletta Suit Alleges ZENWISE LLC: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Jan. 21, 2026 ZIGNEGO CO: Court Approves $8,885 Incentive Award in Cardenas ZUFFA LLC: Parties Seek to Narrow Class Definition in Johnson ********* ABUNDA TECHNOLOGIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABUNDA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04514 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.shopabunda.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Abunda Technologies LLC is an online platform that offers diverse financing options for a wide range of products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ADOBE INC: Chwe Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------- MINCHUL PAUL CHWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03911 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant stole, took, and fraudulently appropriated Plaintiff's valuable data without Plaintiff's consent. The Defendant concealed, aided in the concealing, sold, and utilized the Plaintiff's valuable data that was obtained by Defendant for Defendant's commercial purposes and the financial benefit of Defendant. The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff's valuable data was stolen and obtained because the Defendant designed the code that tracked the Plaintiff's web browsing and operated it in a manner that was concealed and withheld from Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has suffered in jury-in-fact, including the loss of money and property as a result of Adobe's unfair and unlawful practices, to wit, the unauthorized disclosure and taking of his personal information which has economic value, says the suit. Adobe Inc. is an American computer software company based in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O'Mara, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 4747 Executive Dr., Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 923-3939 Email: briano@dicellolevitt.com - and - Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq. Rebecca Trickey, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com rtrickey@dicellolevitt.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 Email: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com ALCOA USA: Files 7th Circuit Appeal in Retirees' Suit ----------------------------------------------------- ALCOA USA CORP., et al. has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Robert W. SIMPKINS, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00278-RLY-CSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge Defendant Alcoa USA Corp.'s decision to breach its longstanding labor agreements by terminating the retiree healthcare benefits of more than 3,000 retired hourly workers ("Retirees"), spouses, disabled adult children, and surviving spouses on January 1, 2021, and replacing that plan with a health reimbursement arrangement. In March 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability and granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants' Cross-Motion was granted only with respect to Plaintiffs' claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) and denied on every other ground. The appellate case is entitled Lynnette Kaiser, et al. v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Case No. 25-1627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LYNNETTE J. KAISER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Barry A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 429 N. Pennsylvania Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Defendants-Appellants ALCOA USA CORP., et al. are represented by: Thomas Birsic, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue K&L Gates Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6500 ALLIANZ LIFE: Cope Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA COPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-02003 (D. Minn., May 6, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practices related to its annuity products, including unfair and deceptive trade practices targeting senior citizens such the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the clear provision of the contract, Allianz breaches its contract and defrauds consumers who select the Alternate Annuity Option III and bases the purchase rates on an interest rate lower than 2.5%, resulting in lower income payments than required under the agreement. As a result of Allianz's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the members of the alleged Class and Subclass have been harmed. This includes stress and anxiety, as well as damages in the form of losses and deprival of the full benefits from their premiums, both selected and under delivered by Allianz as well as benefits that Allianz concealed in order to pitch options that are better for Allianz but worse for consumers, says the suit. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW, LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (720) 805-2008 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Martinho Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM INC., et al. Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 22, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order: 1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the first and second causes of action contained in the Class Action Complaint for Damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 3. Certifying the following class and sub-class: a. "All individuals who (1) applied for an hourly, non- exempt job position with the Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC; (2) received an offer letter from Amazon for an hourly, non-exempt position in one of Amazon's warehouses, distribution centers, and fulfillment centers in the State of California; and (3) attended a standard in-person or hybrid new hire event at any time from July 14, 2018, to the present (the "Class" or "Class Members")"; and b. "All individuals who (1) applied for an hourly, non- exempt job position with Defendant; (2) received an offer letter from Amazon for an hourly, non-exempt position in one of Amazon's warehouses, distribution centers, and fulfillment centers in the State of California; and (3) attended a standard in-person new hire event at any time from July 14, 2018, to the present (the "Sub-Class" or "Sub-Class Members")." 4. Finding the Plaintiff Michelle Martinho to be an adequate representative and certifying her as the class representative. 5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, Larry W. Lee, Kristen M. Agnew, Mai Tulyathan and Max Gavron of Diversity Law Group, P.C., as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. On July 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action against the Defendant in California Superior Court. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sx7cDK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com ANGEL LUIS: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert Order in Delgado Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON TORRES DELGADO, v. ANGEL LUIS ADAN, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-01054-MAJ (D.P.R.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order vacating or amending its Order that commands Defendants to answer the Complaint, engage in discovery and respond to a pending class certification motion. The Court Order specifically as to its command to answer the complaint and engage in discovery regardless of a "dispositive motion or other pleading", was issued sua sponte. Accordingly, this is an issue ruled upon by the Court without the appearing Defendants having an opportunity to voice anything, including advise the Court as to the propriety of such an Order in a case specifically like this one. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EqVCUr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Enrique Silva-Aviles, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney USDC-PR No: 215810 Torre Chardon, Suite 1201 350 Carlos Chardon Street Hato Rey, PR Telephone: (787) 766-5656 ANTHROPIC PBC: Bartz Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, ANDREA BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, and MJ + KJ, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. Under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion to determine whether or not relevant evidence designated "confidential" by the Defendant Anthropic PBC should be sealed and removed from the public record. The Plaintiffs are not the proponents of sealing. Rather, the Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion solely because Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the Protective Order require that any information designated "Confidential" by an opposing party be filed provisionally under seal pending the Court's determination of whether or not the party's confidentiality designation was appropriate. Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San Francisco. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oE8pVj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Geman, Esq. Jacob S. Miller, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. Reilly T. Stoler, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com jmiller@lchb.com delmasry@lchb.com dhutchinson@lchb.com rstoler@lchb.com - and - Justin A. Nelson, Esq. Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq. Collin Fredricks, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. Jordan W. Connors, Esq. J. Craig Smyser, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com asalinas@susmangodfrey.com cfredricks@susmangodfrey.com RNath@susmangodfrey.com jconnors@susmangodfrey.com csmyser@susmangodfrey.com - and - Scott J. Sholder, Esq. CeCe M. Cole, Esq. COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP 60 Broad Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 974-7474 E-mail: sshoulder@cdas.com ccole@cdas.com APPLE INC: Class Action Settlement in Smith Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS SMITH, et al., v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-09527-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees: The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,000,000 and litigation expenses in the amount of $433,417.83. The Court further awards $5,000 as an incentive award to Lead Plaintiff Chris Smith and $2,000 to each of the remaining named Plaintiffs. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated proposed final judgment of two pages or less within 21 days from the date of this order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis in this order. The Court will withhold 10% of the attorney's fees granted in this Order until the Post-Distribution Accounting has been filed. Class counsel shall file a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their Post-Distribution Accounting. The Settlement Class is defined as "All natural persons who reside in the United States, who own or owned any model First Generation, Series 1, Series 2 or Series 3 Apple Watch (i.e. "Covered Devices") for personal and/or household use, and who are reflected in Apple's records as having reported Covered Issues in the United States," between April 24, 2015, and Feb. 6, 2024." Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company known for its consumer electronics, software, and services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cFMTHM at no extra charge.[CC] ARAMARK SERVICES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL CORREA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-02223-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to continue the status conference and the deadline for plaintiff to file motion for class certification. 1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification shall be extended from May 30, 2025 to July 29, 2025; 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file its opposition to the motion for class certification shall be extended from July 11, 2025 to Sept. 9, 2025; 3. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be extended from Aug. 1, 2025 to Sept. 30, 2025; and 4. The deadline for filing a Joint Status Report should be extended from May 23, 2025 to June 23, 2025 and that the June 5, 2025 Status Conference should be continued to July 10, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. or another date thereafter that is convenient for the Court. Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O2a684 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. Carson M. Turner, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP A Professional Law Corporation 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (213) 674-6080 Facsimile: (213) 674-6081 E-mail: rbae@AequitasLegalGroup.com oscharrer@AequitasLegalGroup.com cturner@AequitasLegalGroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Michelle L. Quach, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com michelle.quach@morganlewis.com ARBOR SNOWBOARDS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. ARBOR SNOWBOARDS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03620 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.arborcollective.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. ARBOR SNOWBOARDS, INC., operates the Arbor Collective online retail store, as well as the Arbor Collective interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal BANK OF THE WEST: Manzo Seeks Withdrawal of Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MANZO, an individual, in his representative capacity on behalf of the State of California and fellow Aggrieved Employees, v. BANK OF THE WEST, a California state-chartered bank; BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-05848-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- withdrawing motion for class certification, -- vacating all pending dates, and -- setting a deadline of July 1, 2025, for the Parties to file a stipulation of dismissal or, if the Parties are still working on finalizing settlement, then a status report regarding the status of the settlement. The Plaintiff initially filed a civil action in state court asserting a single claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint asserting class wage and hour claims for statutory damages on behalf of a putative class. The Defendant then removed the state court action to this Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the Court denied. Bank of The West offers banking and lending services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2HQ3pc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com BARCLAYS BANK: Parker Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Case No. 30-2025-01464498-CU OE-CXC was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02217. The Plaintiff alleges that Barclays violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, violated unfair and deceptive trade practice statutes of various states including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and committed several torts by purportedly embedding and using "Adobe Tracking Pixels" on Barclays's website, http://cards.barclaycardus.com,to install and store cookies on website users' browsers and to collect website users' browser and device data, which data Barclays allegedly discloses to and shares with Adobe.[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com - and - Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com The Defendants are represented by: Terence M. Grugan, Esq. Genevieve Bergeron, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 864-8320 Fax: (215) 864-8999 Email: grugant@ballardspahr.com bergerong@ballardspahr.com BENEFITS PARTNER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orosco Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JANINE OROSCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENEFITS PARTNER, LLC d/b/a SALUS GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11204-SKD-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached its duties owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal Private Information from Defendant's care. The Defendant failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' employees' sensitive data, says the suit. Benefit Partners, L.L.C. insurance services and products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com BLACK & VEATCH: Savoy Sues Over Tower Technicians' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LEON SAVOY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01309-PAB (D. Colo., April 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Denver Revised Municipal Code. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Savoy and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek and/or more than 12 hours a workday. But B&V does not pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, B&V automatically deducts 30 minutes a workday from Savoy's and other hourly employees' hours for a "meal period," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide uninterrupted "meal break." B&V's auto-deduction policy violates the federal and state laws by depriving Plaintiff and other hourly employees of wages, including overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, and by failing to authorize, permit, or make available all required meal breaks. Plaintiff Savoy was employed by the Defendant as a tower technician in Colorado, including in Denver, from approximately September 2022 through March 2023. Black & Veatch Corporation is an engineering and construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.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 - 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 CALIF BAIL BOND: Court Rejects Lexington, ASC Bid to Recover Docs ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Donna M. Ryu, Chief Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, denied the motion by Defendants Lexington National Insurance Corporation and American Surety Company, which sought confirmation that 29 inadvertently produced documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Having conducted an in camera review, the court concludes the communications are not privileged and, to the extent any privilege could apply, it has been waived. The court's conclusion rested on two primary findings: the communications' primary purpose was not legal, and any potential privilege was waived due to a lack of a common legal interest among the sureties. This is a putative antitrust class action brought by Plaintiffs against 20 bail bond surety companies and William B. Carmichael, President and CEO of ASC, alleging a decades-long conspiracy to fix prices for bail bonds. In California, many criminal arrestees may post money bail to secure release, which is refunded in full if they appear for scheduled court dates. Arrestees unable to pay bail may purchase bail bonds sold by agents and underwritten by sureties. Sureties charge a premium rate, typically a percentage of the total bail amount, which is not refunded. Agents may reduce the premium through rebates. To set a premium rate, a surety must file a rate application with the California Department of Insurance (CDI), which must approve it. Plaintiffs allege a two-part conspiracy: first, Defendants conspired to maintain an artificially high standard bail bond premium rate of 10%; second, Defendants conspired to suppress rebating by bail bond agents. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code section 16720; the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 United States Code section 1. In November 2016, CDI sent letters to multiple sureties expressing concern over excessive rates and requested supporting data. CDI warned that if rates were found excessive, companies would need to reduce them or refund excess premiums by May 1, 2017. On December 12, 2016, representatives from ASC, Lexington, and Bankers Insurance Company met with CDI. On December 15, 2016, they submitted a document titled "Bail Coalition Working Group White Paper." CDI ultimately did not require companies to lower their rates. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded in their response to the CDI inquiry. Lexington and ASC seek to claw back 29 documents inadvertently produced in discovery. They argue the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, that the privilege was not waived because the advice was shared pursuant to a common legal interest, and that the crime-fraud exception does not apply. The communications involve Mark Holtschneider, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Lexington, and Robert W. Hogeboom, a regulatory lawyer jointly retained by Lexington, ASC, and Bankers as outside counsel. Plaintiffs argue that the communications are not privileged because the primary purpose was to provide business advice rather than legal advice, and that the communications were not confidential. Alternatively, they argue that even if privilege applies, it was waived because the advice was shared with third parties and put at issue by Lexington and ASC. Plaintiffs also argue that the crime-fraud exception applies. According to the Court, the Ninth Circuit's "primary purpose" test applies to attorney-client privilege, requiring that the primary purpose of a communication be to seek or provide legal advice. In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2021). Following in camera review, the court finds that the primary purpose of the vast majority of the communications was to coordinate an industry-wide lobbying effort directed at CDI, not to obtain legal advice. Hogeboom’s advice, characterized as a strategy to "rally the industry," involved non-legal measures such as letters and meetings to persuade CDI to abandon its inquiry. Legal advice does not include lobbying strategies. Moreover, the intention to share advice with other sureties defeats the confidentiality required for privilege. United States v. Moscony, 927 F.2d 742, 752 (3d Cir. 1991). Hence, the Court concludes that these communications are not privileged. With respect to the remaining communications that could potentially be privileged, the Court examined whether the privilege was waived. Lexington and ASC invoke the common interest doctrine, claiming that Lexington, ASC, and Bankers shared a legal interest in addressing CDI's inquiry. The common interest doctrine preserves privilege only if the parties share a common legal interest and the communication furthers that interest. Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 578–79 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Here, the Court finds that the shared interest was commercial, not legal. Each surety faced separate regulatory inquiries, and their coordinated response aimed at preserving industry pricing rather than advancing a joint legal defense. In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, 2016 WL 861019, at 5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016). Because there was no common legal interest, any privilege was waived. The Court notes the primary purpose of the vast majority of the communications was to coordinate a lobbying effort, not to seek legal advice. Any potential privilege in the remaining communications was waived due to the absence of a common legal interest. The Moving Defendants shall produce the 29 documents in full, the Court rules. The case is In re California Bail Bond Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717 (N.D. Cal.). Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Clas: Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Katherine C. Lubin, Esq. Michelle A. Lamy, Esq. Nigar A. Shaikh, Esq. Miriam E. Marks, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com kbenson@lchb.com mlamy@lchb.com nshaikh@lchb.com mmarks@lchb.com - and - Benjamin David Elga, Esq. Brian James Shearer, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW 25 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, NY Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org - and - David Seligman, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1410 High Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 Facsimile: (303) 957-2289 E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org - and - Stuart T. Rossman, Esq. Brian Highsmith, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1245 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 Facsimile: (617) 542-8028 E-mail: srossman@nclc.org bhighsmith@nclc.org - and - Cindy Panuco, Esq. Stephanie Carroll, Esq. Nisha Kashyap, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 201-4722 E-mail: cpanuco@publiccounsel.org scarroll@publiccounsel.org nkashyap@publiccounsel.org CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Norton Wins Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIZA NORTON, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL GROUP PC INC., RSV QOZB LTSS, INC., AND ELEVANCE HEALTH INC., d/b/a CAREBRIDGE HEALTH, Case No. 8:25-cv-00153-WFJ-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for conditional collective action certification and court supervised issuance of notice. The Plaintiffs request the Court enter an Order: (a) granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce in Excel format the names, addresses, cellular phone #'s, employee IDs, and email addresses (including personal email addresses to the extent they are available) for each class/collective member; (c) authorizing the Plaintiffs to send Notice to all class/collective members by U.S. Mail, email and text with links to a website; (d) authorizing reminder notices; and (e) granting any further relief this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff Norton commenced this FLSA 216(b) Collective Action against the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages through its scheme of willfully misclassifying her and all others similarly situated as exempt in violation of Section 207. CareBridge is a medical group practice that specializes in occupational therapy. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WruweF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com CASA CRUZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Milosavljevic Says -------------------------------------------------------- LUKA MILOSAVLJEVIC; STEPHANIE JONES; and GUILHERME PARREIRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASA CRUZ 61; LLC d/b/a CASA CRUZ; and JUAN SANTA CRUZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03490 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waitstaff. Casa Cruz 61 own and operate a restaurant, lounge, and event space in New York County, New York, doing business under the name, "Casa Cruz." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. Shawn R. Clark, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com sclark@faruqilaw.com CASTO CORP: Faces Kramarisc Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN LEIGH KRAMARISC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASTO CORPORATION INC D.B.A. THE BRITT; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 25LBCV01175 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Unfair Competition Law, California Government Code, and Public Policy including failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime owed, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, sexual harassment, discrimination based on sex, retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to prevent discrimination or harassment, and hostile work environment. Casto Corporation Inc., doing business as The Britt, is a company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny M. Starr, Esq. Daniel V. Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-9433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com CEN-CAL FIRE SYSTEMS: Manjarrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose A. Manjarrez, indiviually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cen-Cal Fire Systems, Inc., Sciens Building Solutions, LLC, Sciens Holdings, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006244 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Cen-Cal Fire Systems -- https://cen-calfire.com/ -- offers consultation, design, fabrication, installation and service of underground and overhead fire protection systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com CENTURY SNACKS: Class Cert Filing in Gomez Due Feb. 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACIE GOMEZ, v. CENTURY SNACKS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00708-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline Last Day File Motion Class Certification: Feb. 23, 2026 Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Jan. 7, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference: Apr. 15, 2027 Trial: May 17, 2027 Century Snacks is a food & beverage firm that mainly deals in delivering & crafting seasoned nuts, snacks and unique trail mixes. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1uDcR at no extra charge.[CC] CIUNI & PANICHI: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Johnson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RISHAW JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00793 (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on November 3, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Ciuni & Panichi, Inc. is an accounting firm, with its principal place of business located in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com COCO 7 NAILS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- EUN JUNG KIM, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COCO 7 NAILS & SPA LLC dba Coco Nails & Spa, Angela Li and Longhao Li, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03712 (D.N.J., May 1, 2025) seeks to remedy Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Plaintiff Kim was employed by Defendants as a nail technician from or around September 23, 2024 to February 1, 2025. Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was never paid lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants’ systemic failure to comply with minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements and other unlawful wage-related practices. In addition, the Plaintiff also brings claims for declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as for compensatory and punitive damages, arising from Defendants' unlawful and discriminatory termination of Plaintiff on the basis of her disability, in violation of both the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Coco 7 Nails & Spa LLC, doing business as Coco Nails & Spa, is a New Jersey domestic limited liability company headquartered in River Vale, NJ. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Gibson Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIA GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02413 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2025) arises from the Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of its Orville Redenbacher's Naturals Popcorn products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that the Products contain “Only REAL INGREDIENTS” and as "NATURALS." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant's claims are false because the products contain mixed tocopherols, a synthetic ingredient. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty. In addition, the Plaintiff requires Defendant to change its labeling claims and to provide consumers with monetary relief for its deceptive and misleading product claims. Conagra Brands, Inc. is a food manufacturer headquartered in Chicago, IL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com CONCORA CREDIT: Seals Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concora Credit Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Seals, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Concora Credit Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00728-AN (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Concora Credit -- https://about.concoracredit.com/ -- formerly known as Genesis Financial Solutions is the company behind multiple credit cards for consumers with bad to fair credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq. KENNETH DOBSON 324 S. Abernathy St. Portland, OR 97239 Phone: (971) 717-6582 Email: kdobson@pdxlandlaw.com CREDIT SESAME: Fontana Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL FONTANA and MELISSA SACKETT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SESAME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03479 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Credit Sesame, Inc. is a financial and online banking service provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sapan Due July 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01064-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Motion for class certification: July 18, 2025 -- Opposition to motion for class Aug. 15, 2025 Certification: -- Reply re motion for class Aug. 29, 2025 Certification: CrossCountry is a nationwide lender that offers a variety of home loan options and home financing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TNA94r at no extra charge.[CC] DAVITA INC: Faces G.I. Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ G.I., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00309-WBG (W.D. Mo., May 1, 2025) seeks to redress Defendant's willful and reckless violations of Plaintiff's privacy rights. The Plaintiff and the other Class Members are patients of Defendant who entrusted their personal health information and personally identifiable information to Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to properly safeguard and protect their PHI and PII and publicly disclosed their PHI and PII without authorization in violation of Missouri common law. The unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiff's PHI and PII that occurred on or around April 12, 2025, says the suit. Headquartered in Denver, CO, DaVita, Inc. provides health care and medical services to the general public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com DONALD TRUMP: Court Holds HIDR Suit in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.I.D.R., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00060-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order granting the petitioners' unopposed motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a decision on class certification in Case No. l:25-CV-059-H, W.M.M., et al. v. Trump, et al. This case is stayed pending a decision on class certification n W.M.M. and pending further order of the Court in this case. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ZYjIh at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Orr Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHTON ORR, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10313-JEK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following classes in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): 1. A class of all people who currently want, or in the future will want, a U.S. passport issued with an "F" or "M" sex designation that is different from the sex assigned to that individual under the Passport Policy ("M/F Designation Class"); and 2. A class of all people who currently want, or in the future will want, a U.S. passport and wish to use an "X" sex designation ("X Designation Class"); except 3. No person who is a plaintiff in Schlacter, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., 1:25-cv-01344 (D. Md. filed Apr. 25, 2025), currently pending before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, is included in either class, as requested by the Schlacter plaintiffs' counsel. The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint: (1) Plaintiffs Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, Reid Solomon-Lane, Viktor Agatha, David Doe, AC Goldberg, and Chelle LeBlanc as representatives of the M/F Designation Class; (2) Plaintiffs Sawyer Soe and Ray Gorlin as representatives of the X Designation Class; and (3) Covington & Burling LLP as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DaOltQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. William P. Kasper, Esq. Ansel F. Carpenter, Esq. Gavin W. Jackson, Esq. Jonathan Thompson, Esq. Sean M. Bender, Esq. Robert C. Gianchetti, Esq. Yuval Mor, Esq. Alyssa L. Curcio, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: ichaput@cov.com wkasper@cov.com acarpenter@cov.com gjackson@cov.com jthompson@cov.com sbender@cov.com rgianchetti@cov.com ymor@cov.com acurcio@cov.com - and - Jessie J. Rossman, Esq. Zoe R. Kreitenberg, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. One Center Plaza, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: jrossman@aclum.org zkreitenberg@aclum.org - and - Jon W. Davidson, Esq. Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq. Sruti J. Swaminathan, Esq. Malita V. Picasso, Esq. James D. Esseks, Esq. Aditi Fruitwala, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Facsimile: (212) 549-2650 E-mail: jondavidson@aclu.org lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org sswaminathan@aclu.org mpicasso@aclu.org jesseks@aclu.org afruitwala@aclu.org DOTDASH MEREDITH: Atwood Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- NOVELLA ATWOOD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Novella Atwood, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dotdash Meredith Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-CV-00046-TC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic Personal Information Act by renting, selling, and/or otherwise disclosing for compensation the Plaintiffs' private purchase information, without prior notice of these disclosures. On Aug. 23, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Tena Campbell granted with prejudice on Mar. 13, 2025. The Plaintiffs' cause of action was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Atwood, et al. v. Dotdash Meredith Inc., Case No. 25-4045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NOVELLA ATWOOD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LAW FIRM 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 - and – David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Defendant-Appellee DOTDASH MEREDITH INC. is represented by: James Mark Gibb, Esq. DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 111 South Main Street, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 415-3000 - and – Rebecca Hughes Parker, Esq. Kristen C. Rodriguez, Esq. DENTONS DURHAM JONES PINEGAR 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Filing Amended to April 17, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA DELLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03746-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: 1. The deadline for substantial completion of document production is Sept. 12, 2025; 2. Each Party shall serve affirmative expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use in its case-in- chief), if any, on or before Dec. 19, 2025; 3. Each Party shall serve rebuttal expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use to rebut an expert opinion from its opponent), if any, on or before Jan. 30, 2026; 4. The Parties shall complete all discovery by Feb. 27, 2026; and 5. Motions for summary judgment and class certification, if any, shall be filed by April 17, 2026. Motions for summary judgment or class certification and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed in my Policies and Procedures and in accordance with the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Drexel is a private research university with its main campus in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l3X6KG at no extra charge.[CC] EL POLLO LOCO: Bogavac Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Michael M. Anello of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as DARKO BOGAVAC, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. EL POLLO LOCO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-0339-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal.) to state court. This case concerns allegations that Defendant El Pollo Loco, Inc. wrongfully packaged, labeled, and marketed its products as "recyclable." Plaintiff alleges that E.P. Loco "advertises" its products as recyclable "through a variety of ways, including the use of the 'chasing arrows' symbol on its labeling/packaging." This includes use of the "chasing arrows" symbol on its to-go/takeaway packaging, drink containers, straws, and plastic bags. Plaintiff, for example, purchased "plastic drink containers, straws, plastic packaging, and plastic bags" from E.P. Loco containing this symbol. According to Plaintiff, however, the representations that these items are "recyclable" are false, deceptive, and/or misleading because, he alleges, "most (if not all) of the products are not actually recyclable in San Diego County or any other county in California." Plaintiff first filed this action "on behalf of himself and all similarly situated California citizens who purchased E.P. Loco products in California that are branded, manufactured, distributed, marketed and/or sold by E.P. Loco" in California Superior Court, County of San Diego, on Oct. 21, 2024, and subsequently filed the FAC on Nov. 27, 2024. Defendant removed the action to this Court on Feb. 14, 2025. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17500, et seq., California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq., and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1750 et seq. -- all state law claims. On Feb. 21, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint and strike class allegations therein. On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court. Plaintiff argues that neither of Defendant's stated jurisdictional two bases for removal, the Class Action Fairness Act and federal question jurisdiction, apply to this matter, and thus the Court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Defendant disagrees, asserting that both CAFA and federal question jurisdiction exist. Because Plaintiff limits his class to citizens of California, he precludes the possibility that non-citizens could be class members as pleaded. The Court determines that the diversity of citizenship requirement has not been met and there is no jurisdiction under CAFA, and grants Plaintiff's motion to remand on that basis. Plaintiff argues that the Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction, as this action does not arise out of federal law. Defendant counters that, because Plaintiff's claims all rely on the FTC standard for recyclability claims, as set forth in 16 C.F.R. Sec. 260.12, they thus require interpretation and application of federal law to resolve, giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1331. The Court finds it does not have federal question jurisdiction and thus grants Plaintiff's motion to remand on that basis. Because it lacks jurisdiction over the case, the Court declines to reach Defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TpJlRn from PacerMonitor.com. ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT: Stafford Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAVONA STAFFORD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. ELDERCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a STONEBRIDGE SENIOR LIVING, Case No. 4:24-cv-00690-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA; and (2) directing StoneBridge to provide names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative class members. Stafford seeks to notify the following group of putative class members: "All current and former hourly StoneBridge Nurses, CNAs, and Medical Techs subject to StoneBridge's automatic meal break deduction policy in Missouri in the last three years. ("Patient Care Workers")." StoneBridge allegedly withheld overtime wages from its Patient Care Workers, to avoid paying them overtime wages required under federal law. StoneBridge instead maintained a uniform pay practice of automatic meal break deductions from the Patient Care Workers' shifts despite requiring attendance to patient needs through their meal breaks. As a result, StoneBridge never fully relieved Stafford and similarly situated workers of all duties during meal periods, and Stafford and the Patient Care Workers are due backpay for any time they were "clocked out" for a non-compliant, unpaid meal break. StoneBridge operates senior care facilities throughout Missouri. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vAt2t0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal ELON MUSK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of USAID Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. DOE 4 et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELON MUSK et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00462-TDC (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and certifying the proposed Class defined as: "All persons who, between Jan. 20, 2025, through the present, worked at any time as employees of USAID, including as personal services contractors," excluding the Defendants and anyone who served as the Administrator or Deputy Administrator. On March 18, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15L5Bv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman L. Eisen, Esq. Tianna J. Mays, Esq. STATE DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND 600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 15180 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 594-9958 E-mail: Norman@statedemocracydefenders.org Tianna@statedemocracydefenders.org - and - Mimi Marziani, Esq. Rebecca (Beth) Stevens, Esq. Joaquin Gonzalez, Esq. MARZIANI, STEVENS & GONZALEZ PLLC 1533 Austin Highway, Suite 102-402 San Antonio, TX 78218 Telephone: (210) 343-5604 - and - Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Nicole M. Rubin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 ESSENTIA HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. in Kraft Due Oct. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kraft, et al., v. Essentia Health, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00121 (D.N.D., Filed July 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Peter D. Welte entered an order amending scheduling order as follows: -- Discovery is due by: June 20, 2025. -- Discovery Motions are due by: July 8, 2025 -- Plaintiffs' Class Certification Aug. 26, 2025 Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports and Motion for Class Certification are due by: -- The Defendants' Class Oct. 10, 2025 Certification Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports and Response to the Motion for Class Certification are due by: -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Class Nov. 21, 2025 Certification Expert Disclosures and Reply in Support of the Motion for Class Certification are due by: The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.[CC] EVIG LLC: Kopels Sues Over Supplements' Deceptive Product Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA KOPELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evig LLC dba Balance of Nature and Dr. Douglas Howard, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01065 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Business and Professions Code in connection with their deceptive marketing and false representations of their Balance of Nature products. Throughout the Class period, the Defendants have promoted and delivered the same marketing message and representations regarding the Balance of Nature products--that they will provide consumers with more energy, improve their health and well-being as well as fill in the gaps in the nutrition they receive from their diets. However, the Defendants failed to disclose that consumers are grossly overpaying for products that are almost 40% sugar. In addition, the Defendants also concealed the fact that almost 40% of the Balance of Nature products are vacant calories provided by sugar, yet because it is in such small amounts, the sugar in Balance of Nature provides no perceptible energy boost. While Defendants are claiming that these products fill in nutritional gaps and help "maintain," "protect," and "repair," they failed to provide the actual nutritional values. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated California consumers who purchased the Balance of Nature products, to obtain redress for those who have purchased these products from the three years prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages and any equitable remedies for herself and members of the Proposed Class. Headquartered in St. George, UT, Evig, an own-label distributor, sells and promotes products labeled as dietary supplements under the brand name Balance of Nature. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael McShane, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS LLP 711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - Steven A. Hart, Esq. Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. Sean O'Malley, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com sweltman@hmelegal.com somalley@hmelegal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut St., Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Court Allows Smith to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Paula Xinis entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiff Michael Smith's motion to amend the complaint is granted; (2) The Clerk is directed to docket ECF No. 127-1 separately as the amended complaint; and (3) The Defendant ExamWorks' motion for leave to file a sur- reply is denied. Smith now moves to amend the Complaint solely to modify one subpart of the class definition. The current proposed "TCPA Pre-Recorded class" consists of "all persons in the United States" who: (1) were called with a pre-recorded voice message by ExamWorks (or any party on behalf of ExamWorks); (2) to their cellular telephone provided to ExamWorks by GEICO; (3) during the four-year period prior to filing the complaint in this action through the date of certification; and (4) where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to either GEICO or ExamWorks. The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate the reference to GEICO in subsection (4) so that the amended definition would read "where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to ExamWorks." ExamWorks Group provides medical claim management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=448pcm at no extra charge.[CC] FARMERS GROUP: Hahn Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Group, Inc. The case is styled as Dale Hahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Group, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-03885 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Farmers Insurance Group -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an American insurer group of vehicles, homes and small businesses and also provides other insurance and financial services products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FCA US: Bid to Reconsider Feb. 11, 2025 Order Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK BIEDERMAN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration of the Feb. 11, 2025, Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss. Further, the Court grants the motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). In addition, the Court sets the next case management conference for June 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference. A joint case management conference statement shall be filed no later than June 4, 2025. This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 102, 109. The Court finds the February 11 Order meets the three requirements for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Plaintiffs purchased RAM 2500 and 3500 pickup trucks ("Class Trucks") installed with alleged "defeat devices" that affected the emissions and performance of their diesel engines. In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs advanced 11 causes of action against the Defendants. FCA US is a major automobile manufacturer in the United States, historically known as Chrysler. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ImNAz7 at no extra charge.[CC] FITNESS ALLIANCE: Kazmucha Sues Over Illusory Membership Tiers -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Kazmucha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fitness Alliance, LLC, and EoS Fitness Opco Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01485-CDB (D. Ariz., May 1, 2025) arises from the Defendants' illusory membership tiers. According to the complaint, EoS promises that access to superior features and amenities justify higher tiered memberships with higher prices. However, EoS's representation that the more expensive tiers offer more and better benefits than the less expensive tiers are false, and the increased fees that members pay for higher-tier memberships offer no commensurate benefit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under California law. Headquartered in New York, NY, EoS is a franchise fitness business that operates 125 or more gyms in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, California, Texas and Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 E-mail: leonard@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Gemma Seidita, Esq. David Lawler, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com gseidita@tzlegal.com dlawler@tzlegal.com FONTAINE MODIFICATION: Boyd Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Boyd, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FONTAINE MODIFICATION COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00293 (W.D.N.C., May 1, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), as well as the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), to recover unpaid straight time and overtime compensation Defendant failed to pay in violation of the FLSA, liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees on an hourly basis and did not pay them for work completed before and after their shifts, thereby depriving employees of compensation for all hours worked. The Defendant also failed to include all remuneration, including non-discretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay for overtime calculations, in violation of the FLSA and VOWA. The Defendant's pay practices resulted in systematic underpayment of wages, including regular hourly pay and overtime compensation, in violation of federal and state law. The Defendant unlawfully paid hourly paid workers for fewer hours than are reflected on their timesheets. As a result, there were many weeks in which hourly paid workers were deprived of overtime compensation of 1.5 of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Dublin, Virginia as a Quality Technician and Quality Document Coordinator. The Defendant operates "Fontaine Modification," a truck modification company providing post-production modifications to commercial vehicles and provides products including dual steering conversions, electric drivetrain installations, and extensive cab modifications to corporate graphics applications for large fleets.[BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. COX, STANSBERRY & KINSLEY 2024 Main Street, SW Suite B Cullman, AL 35056 Phone: (205) 870-1205 Fax: (205) 870-1252 Email: blkinsley@cskattorneys.com - and - Eric Sands, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: ericsands@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com FORD MOTOR: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Payne entered an order granting motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file their motion for class certification within 30 days of the resolution of Ford Motor's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. The hearing on the motion for class certification scheduled for 10:00am June 23, 2025, is cancelled. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L3CnCH at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Hurst Sues Over Sale of Vehicles With Seatbelt Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00800-JZ (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, negligent design defect, fraud by omission/concealment, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of a Ford Expedition or Lincoln Navigator with model years ranging from 2018-2020 with defective seatbelt systems. According to the complaint, the pretensioners for the seatbelts installed within the Class vehicles can inadvertently lock preventing their retraction and extension. In late April 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recalled nearly 105,000 of the above referenced Class vehicles due to the mentioned defect. As a result of the Defendant's recall, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered losses, says the suit. Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 696-7394 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 Email: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FYF-EVE'S LLC: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FYF-EVE'S, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04515 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://brookandyork.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. FYF-Eve'S, LLC sells bracelets, costume jewelry, identification bracelets, and jewelry boxes of precious metals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law GEORGIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by June 29 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cappelletti, et al., v. Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00009 (S.D. Ga., Filed Jan. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lisa G. Wood entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any desired motion for class certification on or before June 29, 2025. -- The Court directs the Clerk of Court to amend this deadline upon the record and docket of this case. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. DCA helps communities spur private job creation, implement planning, develop downtowns, generate affordable housing solutions, and promote volunteerism.[CC] GRINDR INC: Fellows Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT FELLOWS, Plaintiff v. G. RAYMOND ZAGE, III, GEORGE ARISON, JAMES FU BIN LU, J. MICHAEL GEARON, JR., NATHAN RICHARDSON, DANIEL BROOKS BAER, GARY I. HOROWITZ, and MEGHAN STABLER, Defendants, and GRINDR INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2025-0477 (Del. Ch., May 1, 2025) is a stockholder class action accusing the Defendants of breaches of fiduciary duties. The class action arises because a corporation's near-majority stockholder has exerted his influence over the Company's board of directors to secure authorization of a $500 million share repurchase program that will use corporate funds to ensure that the stockholder attains majority control. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent Defendants from using Grindr's corporate treasury to facilitate G. Raymond Zage's acquisition of control. Headquartered in California, Grindr, Inc. manages and operates the Grindr platform, a global social networking platform primarily serving gay, bisexual, and sexually explorative adults around the world. Grindr currently trades on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol "GRND" and became a publicly traded company via the De-SPAC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vivek Upadhya, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 - and - Douglas E. Julie, Esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (929) 415-1020 HALESITE LAUNDROMAT: Faces Lizama Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- YONARI JAMILETH ROMERO LIZAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALESITE LAUNDROMAT; AVM LAUNDRY, INC.; MARK RICHARD HOMFELD a/k/a/ MARK HOMFELD; DENISE KELLER a/k/a/ DENISE KELLER HOMFELD, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02194 (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful retention of tips, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide a safe workplace, unlawful deductions and denial of sick leave, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Halesite Laundromat, located at 152 New York Ave., Huntington, Suffolk, New York from approximately May 5, 2016, to May 29, 2024. Halesite Laundromat is a laundry services provider doing business in New York. AVM Laundry, Inc. is a laundry services provider doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Pu-Folkes, Esq. PU-FOLKES LAW GROUP 79-02 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 205-5353 Email: Bryan@pufolkeslaw.com - and - Parham Zahedi, Esq. Z&W LAW FIRM 3710 Crescent St. Apt 6C Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (706) 308-0835 Email: Parham@zwlawoffice.com HARLEM SHAKE: Cantwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEM SHAKE IPHC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02480 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.harlemshake.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Harlem Shake IPHC, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New York City. [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 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HATTEN HOLDINGS: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hatten Holdings Incorporated. The case is styled as Jordan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hatten Holdings Incorporated doing business as: Mountainside Fitness, Case No. 2:25-cv-01481-MTL (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hatten Holdings Incorporated doing business as Mountainside Fitness -- https://mountainsidefitness.com/ -- is the largest locally-owned fitness center chain in Arizona, with 21 locations conveniently located throughout the valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com HEIDARPOUR LAW: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Woodard Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit styled IN RE: SUBPOENA TO HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC ISSUED BY HEALTH INSURANCE ALLIANCE LLC, Case No. 1:25-mc-21698-MD, non-party Heidarpour Law Firm, PLLC filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida a motion to quash the non-party subpoena in this case on April 14, 2025. According to Heidarpour Law Firm, quashing the subpoena is both appropriate and necessary for three reasons: First, the Law Firm is actively serving as counsel for Plaintiff Antionette Woodard in the case styled Antionette Woodard v. Health Insurance Alliance, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02630 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and thus the discovery demanded from the Law Firm regarding its representation of the Plaintiff and her claims in the Illinois Action necessarily target documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Second, the subpoena imposes an undue burden by seeking discovery from a non-party before seeking such documents from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive. Third, the subpoena seeks documents that are plainly irrelevant to the case. Heidarpour Law Firm, PLLC is a legal services provider, located in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Non-party is represented by: Dustin Mauser-Claassen, Esq. KING, BLACKWELL, ZEHNDER & WERMUTH, P.A. 25 East Pine Street Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 422-2472 Facsimile: (407) 648-0161 Email: dmauser@kbzwlaw.com HESS CORP: Seeks May 19 Extension to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, individually, and on behalf of the HESS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. HESS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of time until May 19, 2025 to file opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Counsel for the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's counsel via e-mail on April 29, 2025, and the Plaintiff's counsel does not oppose the requested relief. The Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice as a consequence of this request. The brief extension of time is being sought in good faith and not for the purposes of delay or other improper purpose. On March 21, 2025, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order, which granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in part, with prejudice. On April 4, 2025, Defendants filed their Answer. On April 25, 2025, the Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Revise. In the interim, on April 14, 2025, Plaintiff timely filed his Motion for Class Certification. Hess is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RHz1Hs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William J. Delany, Esq. M. Caroline Wood, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: wdelany@groom.com cwood@groom.com - and - J. Mark Deaton, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 4000 Dallas, TX 75201-6605 Telephone: (713) 222-4054 Facsimile: (713) 222-1475 HOLOSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Defective Firearm Sight, Hart Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LANDRY HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLOSUN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03503 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, strict liability-failure to warn, strick liability-design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, negligence, and violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of Holosun's HS5036-ACSS or HE5126-GD Red or Gold Dot firearm sight with defective cell batteries. According to the complaint, the Product is defective because the sight is powered by a small button cell battery that can be easily accessed by children posing an ingestion hazard. The packaging failed to provide an adequate warning of this potential hazard to consumers. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered losses, says the suit. Holosun Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of firearm-related products, located in City of Industry, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 S Spring St., Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com HOMESITE GROUP: Sigler Seeks Conditional Certification of Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA SIGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOMESITE GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:24-cv-12477-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting first-stage conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to remedy Defendant's failure to pay her, and all other similarly situated persons, overtime compensation. Homesite has employed an unlawful overtime compensation policy or practice resulting in the failure to compensate non-exempt employees for all hours worked as required by the FLSA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to facilitate court-authorized notice to the FLSA Collective of similarly situated potential plaintiffs, defined as: "All current and former Customer Solutions Agents employees and all other workers with similar job titles and/or positions of Defendant during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action [September 27, 2021] to the present." Homesite is an affiliate of American Family Insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vutP3Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com HORIZON BEHAVIORAL: Withers Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Behavioral Health. The case is styled as Kariona Withers, on behalf of herself and her minor children K.M. and K.W., and all others similarly situated v. Horizon Behavioral Health, Case No. 6:25-cv-00037-NKM (W.D. Va., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Horizon Health -- https://www.horizonbh.org/ -- is your behavioral health management partner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan Scout Graham, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Ave, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030-7409 Phone: (703) 934-6377 Fax: (703) 934-6379 Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro HOSPITAL ESPANOL: Faces Rosario Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE A. MORALES ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL ESPAÑOL AUXILIO MUTUO DE PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01244 (D.P.R., May 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Plaintiff is a victim of the data breach, having received a Breach Notice on or around April 21, 2025. Allegedly, the Defendant waited 575 days from the date of the Homeland Security first notified it of the data breach, before it finally began notifying Class Members about the data breach, despite the fact that highly sensitive information was compromised, evinces gross negligence. Headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo de Puerto Rico, Inc., dba Auxilio Mutuo Hospital, provides healthcare services in a range of medical areas, including cancer, cardiovascular, surgery, respiratory care, diabetes, dialysis, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, neurology, nutrition, pediatrics, rehabilitation, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com HOTELENGINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Albines Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MOISES ALBINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOTELENGINE, INC. d/b/a Engine, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00554-UNA (D. Del., May 6, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Albines was employed by the Defendant as a sales employee. HotelEngine, Inc. operates as a travel technology company. The Company provides hotel reservation, booking, and management solutions for transparency, billing, and support needs. HotelEngine serves construction, logistics, oil and gas, retail, and healthcare sectors worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3601 Email: kim@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 HP HOOD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rubio Suit Due Jan. 22, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RUBIO, v. HP HOOD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03621-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures shall be exchanged by May 12, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification shall be filed by Jan. 22, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's designation of class certification expert(s), production of expert report(s), and production of supporting declarations shall be filed by Jan. 22, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by March 23, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply to the motion for class certification shall be filed by May 22, 2026. -- The Motion for class certification shall be heard on June 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 26 before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire -- All other deadlines will be set following a determination on the anticipated motion for class certification. HP Hood is an American dairy company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1kJWsY at no extra charge.[CC] ICF TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Class Certification in Tomasello Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as MIA TOMASELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC., and ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-03759 (D.N.J.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff performed on a live, adult chat website and claims that she and other class members are misclassified as independent contractors. They seek wages for uncompensated time working in a "free chat" area and for earned tips. Plaintiff brings this putative class and collective action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) (Count I), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, et seq. (Count II), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1, et seq. (Count III & Count IV). Plaintiff claims that Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors under the Performer Agreements that Plaintiff and all other Performers are required to sign. Due in part to this alleged misclassification, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the NJWHL by failing to pay Performers for all hours worked. She also claims that Defendants violated the NJWPL by withholding wages due to them as employees by: (1) failing to compensate for hours worked, (2) withholding wages by mandating purchases without reimbursement, and (3) withholding wages by diverting gratuity paid to Performers. Plaintiff moved for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for a class of all persons who, at any time from August 6, 2019 continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as Performers for ICF and/or Accretive in New Jersey and were classified as independent contractors under their Performer Agreements. Defendants oppose. The Court is satisfied that the putative class is sufficiently ascertainable. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons who executed a Performer Agreement with Defendants in which they were classified as independent contractors and worked as a Performer for Defendants at any time from August 6, 2019, to the present, in the state of New Jersey. The proposed class is sufficiently defined with reference to objective criteria, since it is grounded on a factual determination and not premised on a legal conclusion. In addition, there is a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for Defendants to determine potential class members. Indeed, Plaintiff has informed the Court that Defendants have identified approximately 281 Performers who meet the defined class criteria. Plaintiff asserts that Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement is satisfied because Defendants treat Plaintiff and putative class members uniformly. Plaintiff points to the fact that Plaintiff and all putative class members are classified as independent contractors pursuant to the terms of nearly-identical Performer Agreements, all of which subject Plaintiffs and putative class members alike to the same rules, policies, and procedures. Similarly, Plaintiff highlights the consistent payment practices of Streamate -- that Performers are not paid by Streamate while in their free chat areas, and that Streamate retains a portion of all Gold transactions paid to Performers. The Court finds the typicality requirement is satisfied. Plaintiff's alleged injuries -- unpaid wages, tips, and illegal deductions -- are representative of the putative class's injuries. These alleged injuries arise out of the same alleged misclassification of all Performers as independent contractors. All members of the putative class advance the same legal theory that Defendants exercised sufficient control over Performers' work, such that the Performers should have been classified as Defendants' employees. According to the Court, putative class members likely have no significant interest in individually controlling separate prosecutions because damages owed to each Performer may be relatively small. While not explicitly argued, the sensitive nature of Performers' work and identities likely favors resolution by class action, since a class member is one of many as opposed to one of one. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the superiority requirement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iehH4y from PacerMonitor.com. IMMACULATE HOME: Class Settlement in Wilson Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAKEESHA WILSON, v. IMMACULATE HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01439-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order: -- granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement as outlined in the class action settlement agreement entered into by the Parties on April 17, 2025 in which the members of the class are defined; and -- denying as moot the conditional certification motion. Immaculate Home provides a wide range of home care services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tZ3cCr at no extra charge.[CC] INSPIRE BRANDS: De Ayora Seeks to Confirm Arbitral Award -------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN PAUL DE AYORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSPIRE BRANDS, INC.; and ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Respondents, Case No. 3:25-cv-03645 (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2025) is an action seeking to confirm an arbitral award against Inspire Brands LLC and Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitral award was made in the San Francisco office of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. Inspire Brands, Inc. operates as a restaurant company. The Company offers meat, seafood, and vegetables starters, dining, cocktails, and snacks, as well as provides franchise support, restaurant development planning, design and construction, operations training, marketing, branding, and supply chain expertise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com IONIC DIGITAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Vejseli, et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David of the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as VETON VEJSELI, BRETT PERRY, and CHRISTOPHER VILLINGER, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated stockholders of Ionic Digital, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT DUFFY, THOMAS DIFIORE, SCOTT FLANDERS, ELIZABETH LAPUMA, and IONIC DIGITAL, INC., Defendants, C.A. No. 2025-0232-BWD (Del. Ch.) under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. The defendants' motion to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(6) and 23 are deferred until trial. The plaintiffs in this expedited action are stockholders of Ionic Digital, Inc., a cryptocurrency mining company that was formed in January 2024 as part of Celsius Network, LLC's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. In connection with Ionic's upcoming annual meeting, the plaintiffs submitted notices nominating two candidates to serve as "Class I" directors on the company's classified board of directors. But days later, the plaintiffs learned that the Board had resolved to amend Ionic's bylaws to reduce the size of the Board, such that only one seat will be up for election at the annual meeting. On March 19, Plaintiffs filed the operative Amended Complaint, which asserts four counts: Count I alleges a claim challenging the Board Reduction Resolution as a breach of fiduciary duty; Count II alleges a claim challenging the Board Reduction Resolution under the Bylaws; Count III alleges a claim challenging the Board's rejection of the Nomination Notice as a breach of fiduciary duty; and Count IV alleges a disclosure claim. Defendants have moved to dismiss Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1. Count I alleges that the Board Reduction Resolution is the product of a breach of fiduciary duty because it is not a proportional response to any reasonably perceived threat to corporate policy and effectiveness and interferes with "the fair exercise of the stockholder franchise at the Annual Meeting. Count II alleges that the Board Reduction Resolution violates the Bylaws, which require that the Board shall consist of no less than five members. Both counts seek to invalidate the Board Reduction Resolution so that stockholders can elect two directors instead of one at the upcoming Annual Meeting. Defendants contend that Counts I and II are derivative dilution claims that belong to Ionic, and Plaintiffs must therefore satisfy the requirements for derivative standing under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 -- including by pleading with particularity that their failure to make a demand is excused, which Plaintiffs make no effort to do. Plaintiffs respond that Counts I and II are not derivative, but direct, claims. Because Counts I and II allege direct claims, the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 23.1 is denied, the Court finds. Defendants move to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Defendants also move to dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV as to any class under Court of Chancery Rule 23, asserting that these counts cannot be maintained as class claims by Plaintiffs. The Court concludes it will be most efficient to address the parties' remaining arguments on a full record as part of its post-trial ruling. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fKmLSP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Veton Vejseli, Brett Perry, and Christopher Villinger: A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. Daniel J. McBride, Esq. Nicholas F. Mastria, Esq. ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19807 Phone: (302) 778-1000 E-mail: bayliss@abramsbayliss.com mcbride@abramsbayliss.com mastria@abramsbayliss.com - and - Adrienne M. Ward, Esq. Lori MarksEsterman, Esq. Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. Daniel M. Stone, Esq. OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 451-2300 Fax: (212) 451-2222 E-mail: award@olshanlaw.com lmarksesterman@olshanlaw.com jma@olshanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Scott Duffy, Thomas DiFiore, Scott Flanders, and Ionic Digital, Inc.: Martin S. Lessner, Esq. Alberto E. Chávez, Esq. Andrew J. Czerkawski, Esq. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Wilmington, DE; 1000 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Phone: (302) 571-6600 Fax: (302) 571-1253 E-mail: mlessner@ycst.com achavez@ycst.com aczerkawski@ycst.com Attorneys for Defendant Elizabeth LaPuma: Bradford J. Sandler, Esq. PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 919 North Market Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 652-4100 Fax: (302) 652-4400 E-mail: bsandler@pszjlaw.com ISSM PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sattyakam Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- NUR SATTYAKAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISSM PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03675 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sattyakam was employed by the Defendant as a security guard. ISSM Protective Services Inc. is a security and investigations, business services general, and business services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Can File Supplement in Support of Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean entered an order permitting supplement in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and preliminary approval of a class action settlement: By no later than June 6, 2025, the Plaintiff is permitted to file a supplement in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Plaintiff is directed to submit a redlined copy of the original motion and attachments for the following issues: -- the motion lacks specific support for the $7,500 proposed class service award; and -- Some of the calculated claims. Alternatively, the Plaintiff may file an amended motion that supersedes the original, with corrected calculations. ITS Logistics provides logistics solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=52xNuX at no extra charge.[CC] J-CO CONCRETE: Jackson Sues Over Worker Misclassification --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY JACKSON, Plaintiff v. J-CO CONCRETE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00476-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 1, 2025) is a class action challenging Defendant's policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4113.15. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were required to, and did, work more than 40 hours per workweek. However, throughout their employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were misclassified as independent contractors. As a result, they were only compensated at a flat rate per day, regardless of the hours worked, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Jackson County, Ohio, J-Co Concrete, LLC is a for-profit domestic limited liability company that provides concrete services, including mixing, pouring, and shaping concrete. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam L. Slone, Esq. BRIAN G. MILLER CO., LLC 250 West Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270 Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 221-4035 Facsimile: (614) 987-7841 E-mail: als@bgmillerlaw.com JANCO FS 3: $190K Class Settlement in Garcia-Ortiz Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DULCE GARCIA-ORTIZ, v. JANCO FS 3, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00239-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement and provisional class certification: Event Date Class data to be provided to Settlement May 30, 2025 Administrator: Class Notice to be sent by: June 13, 2025 Motion for Final Approval to be filed by: Sept. 2, 2025 Class Counsel to file their motion for fees Sept. 2, 2025 and costs and Class Representative award: Class Members' deadline to submit written Sept. 15, 2025 objection to attorneys' fees, costs, or class representative award: Class Counsel to file reply to Class Member Sept. 22, 2025 written objection to attorneys’ fees, costs, or class representative award: Fairness and Final Approval Hearing: Nov. 18, 2025 NOTE: Subject to change without further notice to the Class The Plaintiff Dulce Garcia-Ortiz and California employees of Defendant Janco FS 3, LLC (DBA Velociti Services) were allegedly forced to work through their meal and rest breaks in order to accommodate Velociti's needs. They were denied overtime wages and accurate itemized statements. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked in California at any time during the Class Period, excluding those individuals whose employment is subject to a collective bargaining agreement and/or who agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes against the Defendant." Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Velociti will pay $190,000 into a common settlement fund, without admitting liability. This Gross Settlement Amount includes attorneys' fees and costs, the cost of settlement administration, the Plaintiff's class representative service award, payment for PAGA penalties, and tax expenses. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to seek up to 33 and 1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount, currently estimated as $63,327, and litigation expenses of actual costs incurred, currently estimated as $2,256.76. The Gross Settlement Amount includes payment to the settlement administrator, which is not to exceed $6,500. Plaintiff Garcia-Ortiz will receive a class representative service payment of $7,500. The Gross Settlement Amount also includes a $15,000 PAGA penalties payment, $11,250 of which will be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and $3,750 will be distributed to the participating class members in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Velociti. On December 19, 2024, the parties reached a settlement on a class and representative basis after armslength negotiations with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. On Feb. 24, 2025, the Court granted the parties' request for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to ensure that the complaint's class definition matches the class definition in the parties' settlement agreement. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=75rESc at no extra charge.[CC] JC GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ MARIA MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JC GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12346 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2025 is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Mora was employed by the Defendants as a server. JC Group International, LLC operates several Gen Korean BBQ House Restaurants, and other restaurants in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com JEWISH VOICE: Faoro Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAORO v. JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00289 (D.D.C., Filed Jan. 31, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered an order that Plaintiff must move for class certification by June 9, 2025. The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other personal injury.[CC] JOHN PAUL: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL HEAGNEY, RICA GUERRERO, KERRIE GONNELLA, JOHN ROHLOFF, and JEWEL RULE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, to partially file under seal the following: 1. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification; and 2. Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Michella A. Kras in support of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification. John Paul is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5xOxCY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. Michella A. Kras, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonarda@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying "Damages Class" and "Unjust Enrichment Class," which are defined as follows: The Damages Class is defined as: "All Third-Party Payers who indirectly purchased or paid for, as part of a prescription drug benefit, some or all of the purchase price for Stelara in the Damages Class States or Territories1 for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries, from Jan. 1, 2024 until Dec. 31, 2025." The following entities are excluded from the Damages Class: a) J&J and its subsidiaries and affiliates; b) federal and state governmental entities; and c) Third-Party Payers whose only purchases were made pursuant to any Medicaid plan, whether Fee-for-Service or Managed Medicaid. The Unjust Enrichment Class is defined as: "All Third-Party Payers that indirectly purchased or paid for, as part of a prescription drug benefit, some or all of the purchase price for Stelara in the Unjust Enrichment States or Territories2 for personal use by their members, enrollees or beneficiaries from Jan. 1, 2024 until Dec. 31, 2025." The following entities are excluded from the Unjust Enrichment Class: a) J&J and its subsidiaries and affiliates; b) federal and state governmental entities; and c) Third-Party Payers whose only purchases were made pursuant to any Medicaid plan, whether Fee-for-Service or Managed Medicaid. Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of CareFirst as representative of the class; for the appointment of Hannah W. Brennan, Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Peter D. St. Phillip as Co-Lead Class Counsel; and appointment of William H. Monroe, Jr. as Local Liaison Counsel for the class. The plaintiffs also move for appointment of Eric J. Miller, Vice President of Case Management for A.B. Data Class Action Administration, as Notice Administrator and for approval of the plaintiffs' proposed Summary Notice, Long-Form Notice, Claim Form, and the plaintiffs' proposal for manner of notice, filed herewith. The grounds for the plaintiffs' motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of Whitney Street dated April 30, 2025 and the exhibits submitted therewith, the Declaration of Hannah Brennan dated April 30, 2025, the Declaration of Abbye Ognibene dated April 30, 2025, and the Declaration of Peter St. Phillip dated April 30, 2025. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eubYU0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser , Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. Crown Center, Suite 600 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq. Audley Fuller, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com abbyeo@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com hannahs@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com audleyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. Noelle Ruggiero, Esq. Alexis Castillo, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com URabinovitz@lowey.com RGirnys@lowey.com CKopel@lowey.com NRuggiero@lowey.com ACastillo@lowey.com - and - John Radice, Esq. April Lambert, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com alambert@radicelawfirm.com kpickle@radicelawfirm.com KAWASAKI MOTORS: Melendez Balks at Defective Motorcycle Crankshafts ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICKIE MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., USA., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00910 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's defective crankshafts of its 2025 KX Series cross country motorcycles. The said motorcycles are defective because the primary gear on the crankshaft can fail creating a crash hazard that could result in serious bodily injury. Despite this known crash risk, the Defendant represented that these motorcycles were safe and effective for their intended use, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks damages and equitable remedies on behalf of themselves and the putative class who purchased these dangerous motorcycles and have suffered losses. Plaintiff also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment, among others. Headquartered in California, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA markets and distributes Kawasaki motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, watercraft, outboard motors, and other electric products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com KELL & ASSOCIATES: O'Brien Sues Over Unsecured Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANNE O’BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01397-JMC (D. Md., May 1, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information. Despite its duties to safeguard individuals' private information, the Defendant discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident where an unauthorized third party accessed a portion of its network between December 12, 2024 and December 17, 2024 and procured certain private information. The data breach has affected 263,893 individuals. However, Defendant began notifying affected persons on April 21, 2025. Headquartered in Sparks, MD, Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. provides benefits administration and technology, broker and consulting services, payroll solutions and other comprehensive tools to businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON, LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road - Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 874-4505 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alexander Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DHYMONIQUE ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC. d/b/a KELLY BENEFITS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01343 (D. Md., April 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite the Defendant's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI with which it was entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information collected and stored by Defendant was accessed and acquired by unauthorized third parties during a data breach that occurred on or around December 12, 2024 through December 17, 2024 when certain files on Kelly Benefits' environment were copied and taken (the "Data Breach"). As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic, standard security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI have been compromised by cybercriminals, says the suit. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. d/b/a Kelly Benefits provides benefits administration and technology, broker and consulting services, payroll solutions, and other comprehensive tools and strategies to serve businesses of all sizes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rose Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY ROSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., dba KELLY BENEFITS; and TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01426-TDC (D. Md., May 2, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendants collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the suit. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. operates as an insurance broker. The Company provides individual insurance, worker's compensation, benefits administration, consulting, and workforce management solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane O. King, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DUANE O. KING, PC 803 W. Broad St., Suite 210 Falls Church, VA 22046 Telephone: (202) 331-1963 Email: dking@dkinglaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Whye Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LYNN WHYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01329-RDB (D. Md., April 25, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving the Defendant due to its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendant's clients are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public private information, including that of their family members, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain and facilitate employment benefits programs for Defendant's clients. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the suit. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its Benefits Recipients Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, the suit asserts. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. is a company that provides employee-benefit management services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W Morgan Street  Raleigh, NC 27603   Telephone: (212) 946-9305 E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com - and -   Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100  E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com KIM KOVOL: Court Narrows Claims in Mary B, et al. Foster Case Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as MARY B., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIM KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community Services, in her official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska) In this putative class action, Plaintiffs seek wide-ranging reform of Alaska's foster care system, administered by Alaska's Office of Children's Services, alleging that the system harms the children it is designed to protect and violates Plaintiffs' federal rights. They bring claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a proposed class consisting of "all children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS." In addition, Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of three proposed subclasses: (1) Alaska Native children who are or will be entitled to Indian Child Welfare Act protection (the "Alaska Native Subclass"); (2) Children who currently reside or will reside in a kinship foster home -- the home of a family member -- who meet the criteria to receive foster care maintenance payments under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 672 (the "Kinship Subclass"); and (3) Children who are or will be in foster care and experience physical, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities (the "ADA Subclass"). After this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, four claims remain: (1) violation of substantive due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) deprivation of the right to parent-child association pursuant to the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (3) violation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ("CWA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 670 et. seq.; and (4) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims based on purported violations of the CWA, maintaining that none of the identified provisions create federal statutory rights enforceable by Sec. 1983. In Count Three, Plaintiffs assert that these provisions create several statutory rights enforceable by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983: a) placement in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, closest to their home community that conforms to nationally recommended professional standards, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(5)(A); b) access to quality services to protect his or her safety and health, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a)(22); c) a written case plan that includes a plan to provide safe, appropriate and stable placements, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(1)(A); d) a written case plan that ensures that the child receives safe and proper care while in foster care and implementation of that plan, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(1)(B); e) a written case plan that ensures provision of services to parents, children, and foster parents to facilitate reunification, or where that is impossible, the permanent placement of the child and implementation of that plan, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(1)(B); f) a case review system in which each child has a case plan designed to achieve safe and appropriate foster care placements in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, close to their home community, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(5)(A); and g) the right to have a petition to terminate parental rights filed if the child has been in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months, unless doing so goes against the best interest of the child as documented in the case record, or subject to a statutory exemption, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 675(5)(E). Defendants contend that none of the CWA provisions on which Plaintiffs rely create rights enforceable under Sec. 1983. The Court finds that Secs. 671(a)(16) and 675(5)(A) create statutory rights enforceable by Sec. 1983. As such, the Court denies summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs' claim asserting a right to a case review system in which each child has a case plan designed to achieve safe and appropriate foster care placements in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, close to their home community. However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' asserted right to placement in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, closest to their home community that conforms to nationally recommended professional standards is not supported by the text of Sec. 675(5)(A). According to the Court, that provision requires a State to provide a case review system, which is a procedure to assure that each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe setting that is the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available and in close proximity to the parents' home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child. The right is to a review procedure designed to achieve placement in a safe, least-restrictive setting. The right is not to the placement itself. The Court therefore grants Defendants summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' assertion of a right to placement in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, closest to their home community that conforms to nationally recommended professional standards. The Court dismisses the following CWA claims from this case: 1. placement in the least restrictive and most family-like setting, closest to their home community that conforms to nationally recommended professional standards, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 671(a)(16), 675(5)(A); and 2.access to quality services to protect his or her safety and health, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 671(a)(22). Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Three is otherwise denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c7eQ00 from PacerMonitor.com. LHNH LAVISTA: Lanz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Residents ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All residents at The Reserve at Lavista Walk apartment complex as of Nov. 10, 2023, as identified in the Defendants' leasing records. Charnelle Gunn and Robert Stokes are excluded from the class. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class on the issue of liability pursuant to Federal Rule 23(c)(4) and address damages in a second phase. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are responsible for the losses suffered by residents of The Reserve at Lavista Walk from the catastrophic fire on Nov. 10, 2023. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7viKXT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas H. Dean, Esq. DEAN THAXTON, LLC 601 E. 14th Avenue (31015) Cordele, GA 31010 Telephone: (229) 271-9323 E-mail: doug@deanthaxton.law - and - Kenneth Brosnahan, Esq. Linda G. Carpenter, Esq. THE BROSNAHAN LAW FIRM 31 Lenox Point, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30324 Telephone: (404) 853-8964 E-mail: kwb@brosnahan-law.com lgc@brosnahan-law.com - and - Adam Hoipkemier, Esq. EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER LLC 1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200 Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (706) 508-4000 E-mail: adam@ehdhlaw.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watts, et al., v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12845 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting consent motion to seal class certification filing. -- Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of this order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Counsel must include -- Leave to file granted on (date of order) -- in the caption of the document. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Liberty Mutual operates as an insurance company.[CC] LUCENT HEALTH: Removes Corralejo Suit to M.D. Tenn. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ROYAL CORRALEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCENT HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Chancery Court of the State of Tennessee, Davidson County (Case No. 25-0278-IV) to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 15, 2025. The clerk of court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00427. The case is assigned to Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. and referred to Judge Alistair Newbern. Lucent Health Solutions, LLC operates as a healthcare risk management company. The Company offers third-party administration and health plan services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Warnock, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 35 Music Square East, Suite 310 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 749-8300 Facsimile: (615) 749-8308 Email: twarnock@loeb.com - and - Keane Barger, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 901 New York Avenue NW Suite 300 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 618-5000 Facsimile: (202) 618-5001 Email: kbarger@loeb.com L’OREAL USA: Wins Bid to Transfer Snow Case to New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Micah W.J. Smith of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted L'Oreal USA, Inc.'s motion to transfer venue of the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SNOW, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, vs. L'OREAL USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00110-MWJS-KJM (D. Haw.) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. L'Oreal is a cosmetics brand that manufactures, markets, and sells over‐the‐counter products to treat acne. Some of these products contain a drug product known as benzoyl peroxide (BPO). When BPO is exposed to high temperatures, it can break down into a compound called benzene, a known human carcinogen. The Initial Complaint alleged that between May and October 2023, Snow bought and used a L'Oreal acne cream that contained BPO. It alleged that the cream did not label benzene as an ingredient or warn consumers that it contained benzene, and that if Snow had known that it did, she would not have bought the product. Further, the Initial Complaint alleged that L'Oreal knew or should have known that its BPO products could contain benzene, and that L'Oreal therefore engaged in false and misleading marketing, advertising, and labeling. It brought claims of deceptive trade practices and false advertising violations under various state statutes, in addition to claims of breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. It sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought these products, including citizens of California, Connecticut, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington. It requested compensatory and punitive damages for Snow and members of the proposed nationwide class, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief. Snow then filed her First Amended Complaint on March 12, 2025. This amended pleading is similar to the Initial Complaint in most respects. But it differs in one significant aspect: the FAC limits its claims to those resting on Hawai‘i state law, and further limits the proposed class to Hawai‘i residents. L'Oreal moved to transfer the venue of this action to the Southern District of New York. In its motion, L'Oreal pointed out that, as of that date, there were already two pending cases against L'Oreal in the Manhattan federal district court that had been initially filed in that court: Abednego v. LOreal USA, Inc., No. 24‐cv‐03998 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2024), and Noakes v. L'Oreal U.S.A., Inc., No. 24‐cv‐02735 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2024). By the time of the first hearing on this motion, a third case, O'Dea v. L'oreal U.S.A., No. 24‐cv‐08352 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024), had been transferred to the Southern District of New York court from the Northern District of Illinois. L'Oreal further noted that there were three other cases, including this one, in which motions to transfer were pending. Snow opposed the motion, arguing that her case should remain in this district. The Court concludes that the interests of justice and the convenience factors, taken together, weigh in favor of transfer. According to the Court, transfer of this case would substantially promote judicial economy given its significant overlap with the five cases pending in the Southern District of New York. All pending deadlines are vacated and to be re‐set by the District Court in the Southern District of New York. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4soG2J from PacerMonitor.com. MARYLAND: Parties Seek Briefing Schedule for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., by his next friend, BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-MJM (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to approve the parties' proposed briefing schedule for class certification and to further define the class discovery period. The parties propose that the period of discovery be continued until June 1, 2025, to permit the parties to review the discovery that has recently been produced and is anticipated to be produced by May 2, 2025. The extended discovery period will be for the sole purposes of completing production on any existing discovery requests and resolving disputes regarding those requests. The parties propose the following briefing schedule for class certification: a. The Plaintiffs to define and provide the data set that their expert(s) will rely upon as the basis of their opinions by September 1, 2025. b. Plaintiffs’ expert(s) to provide their report to Defendants by November 11, 2025. c. Plaintiffs to file their renewed Motion for Class Certification by November 17, 2025. d. Defendants' expert(s) to provide their report to Plaintiffs by December 22, 2025. e. Defendants to file their Opposition to Class Certification by January 16, 2026. f. Plaintiffs to file their Reply to Defendants' Opposition by February 6, 2026. Maryland Department of Human Services is the state's primary social services provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hfsDiM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luciene M. Parsley, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND 1500 Union Avenue, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (443) 692-2494 Facsimile: (410) 727-6389 E-mail: LucieneP@disabilityrightsmd.org - and - Mitchell Y. Mirviss, Esq. VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street, 9th Fl. Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 244-7412 Facsimile: (410) 244-7742 E-mail: mymirviss@venable.com The Defendants are represented by: Elise Song Kurlander, Esq. Barry Dalin, Esq. Ann M. Sheridan, Esq. Elise Song Kurlander, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 25 S. Charles Street, 10th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-8384 Facsimile: 410-333-0026 - and - Nicole Lugo Clark, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 300 W. Preston St., Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-1867 Facsimile: (410) 333-7894 MOBILE MEDIC: Seeks May 19 Extension to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDIN OLIVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MOBILE MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00180-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the Defendant's Motion and extending the deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for certification of a Collective up to and including May 19, 2025. The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective on April 21, 2025. The Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective are currently due on Friday, May 9, 2025. The Defendant and Plaintiff are currently engaged in active settlement negotiations. The Plaintiff and Defendant have entered into a Tolling Agreement whereby agreeing to effectively toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations on putative plaintiffs’ and class members’ claims under the FLSA and WARN Act from April 30, 2026, through May 19, 2025. Accordingly, the Defendant's requests an extension of time, up to and including, May 19, 2025, within which to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Certification of a Collective. Mobile Medic provides emergency medical systems services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmsCO6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Boonesville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Maja Veselinovic, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Juan B. Hernandez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 410-2226 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com Maja.veselinovic@ogletree.com juan.hernandez@ogletreedeakins.com NATIONAL ELECTRIC: Romero Sues Over Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- TOBIAS NINO ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC & SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV12851 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2025) seeks for civil penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff is a California resident that has worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a journeyman electrician during the statutory period. Allegedly, the Defendants classified Plaintiff as non-exempt from California's overtime requirements, and paid Plaintiff an hourly wage. Throughout the statutory period, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, including all overtime wages. Among others, the Defendants also failed to provide meal periods and to authorize and permit rest periods. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, National Electric & Services, Inc. is an electrical contracting company serving residential, commercial, and industrial clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. S. Phillip Song, Esq. Kailani Humeston, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com psong@moonlawgroup.com khumeston@moonlawgroup.com NCAA: $49.25MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SMART AND MICHAEL HACKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Case No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification of a conditional settlement class and preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The court further ordered that the following class be provisionally certified for the purpose of settlement: "All persons who, pursuant to NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.7.6, served as a "volunteer coach" in college baseball at an NCAA Division I school from Nov. 29, 2018 to July 1, 2023; The parties proposed a gross settlement amount of $49,250,000, which includes the following: (a) $32,794,850 for payments to class members; (b) up to 33.33% of the gross settlement amount for plaintiffs attorneys' fees and up to $1.5 million for costs and expenses incurred; (c) $30,150 to pay the settlement administrator and $35,000 to pay the expert economist for work on settlement administration; (d) incentive awards for the two class representatives of $7,500 each; and (e) a contingency fund of $100,000. The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the settlement class, subject to further consideration at the final fairness hearing after distribution of notice to members of the settlement class; Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is appointed as the Settlement Administrator. The Plaintiffs Taylor Smart and Michael Hacker brought this putative class action against defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), alleging violations of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and 1 in Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BPz5aP at no extra charge.[CC] NEVRO CORP: Faces Retana Suit in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Nevro Corp. captioned as AURELIANO RETANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEVRO CORP., Case No. 4:25-cv-03362-JSW (N.D. California, April 15, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White. Nevro Corp. operates as a medical device company focused on providing products for patients suffering from debilitating chronic pain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Gerald D Lane , Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com NEWPORT HARBOR: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Osseck Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS OSSECK JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWPORT HARBOR PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 30-2025-01475582-CU-NP-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., April 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 8, 2024 and November 11, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Newport Harbor Pathology Medical Group, Inc. is a healthcare provider, with its principal place of business located in Newport Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Stays Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bucks County Employees Retirement System, et al., v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04175 (N.D. Ga., Filed Sept. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to stay class certification deadline. -- Class certification deadlines are stayed pending issuance of a discovery scheduling order. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Norfolk Southern engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the United States.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Motion for TRO Filed in Conley Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit styled CARRIE CONLEY, LOCKHART WEBB, and ELLA KROMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; GABRIELA ADLER-ESPINO; and THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN HIRSCH, JEFF CARMON, STACY "FOUR" EGGERS IV, KEVIN N. LEWIS, and SIOBHAN O'DUFFY MILLEN, in their official capacities as members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00193-M-RJ, the Plaintiffs filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on April 14, 2025. The Plaintiffs represent a putative class of up to 5,509 registered military and overseas voters who voted in the 2024 general election for Seat Six on the North Carolina Supreme Court in accordance with the settled and widely communicated rules in place for the election. The State Board of Elections ("NCSBE") is ordered to presumptively invalidate the putative class's votes for that race, based solely on the retroactive application of a change in election rules articulated over five months after all votes were cast and counted. The Plaintiffs seek immediate injunctive relief to maintain the status quo and prevent the NCSBE from denying thousands of qualified voters their fundamental rights. Absent immediate intervention from this Court, the NCSBE will flagrantly violate the Plaintiffs' federal due process, equal protection, and voting rights, motion says. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica A. Marsden, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 510 Meadowmont Village Circle, No. 328 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Facsimile: (202) 769-3176 Email: jess.marsden@protectdemocracy.org - and - Anne Harden Tindall, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 510 Meadowmont Village Circle, No. 328 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Facsimile: (202) 769-3176 Email: anne.tindall@protectdemocracy.org - and - Samuel Jacob Davis, Esq. ELECTION LAW CLINIC AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 6 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138 Telephone: (631) 807-2327 - and - Hayden Johnson, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite #163 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Facsimile: (202) 769-3176 Email: hayden.johnson@protectdemocracy.org - and - John Paredes, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 82 Nassau Street, #601 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Facsimile: (202) 769-3176 Email: john.paredes@protectdemocracy.org - and - Stacey Leyton, Esq. Danielle Leonard, Esq. Juhyung Harold Lee, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 Email: sleyton@altber.com dleonard@altber.com hlee@altber.com NORTH WIND SERVICES: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alex W. Smith, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTH WIND SERVICES, LLC, an Alaska limited liability company; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV113668 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03793-LB. The Plaintiff's Complaint in the State Court Action asserted the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, and; Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alison L. Tsao, Esq. Marianne C. Koepf, Esq. Candace DesBaillets, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 981-3233 Email: atsao@cdflaborlaw.com mkoepf@cdflaborlaw.com cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com NUEVO SHALON: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA ALTAGRACIA SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUEVO SHALON RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a RESTAURANT SHALON), EL MISMO SHALON RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a MI SHALON RESTAURANT), LALILA HERNANDEZ, FATIMA HERNANDEZ, and MATEO HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03470 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The suit is brought over Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish statement of wages. Plaintiff Santiago was employed by the Defendants from approximately March 16,2020 until September 16, 2024 as a cook, food preparer and porter. Based in Bronx, New York, Restaurant Shalon and Mi Shalon Restaurant are two Latin American Restaurants owned by Lalila Hernandez, Fatima Hernandez, and Mateo Hernandez.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Culver Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onsite Mammography, LLC. The case is styled as Theresa Culver, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Onsite Mammography, LLC d/b/a OnSite Women's Health, Case No. 3:25-cv-30081-KAR (D. Mass., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Onsite Mammography, LLC doing business as Onsite Women's Health -- https://onsitewomenshealth.com/ -- manages the complete breast health service by providing board-certified and fellowship-trained radiologists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Capodici Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMY CAPODICI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC d/b/a ONSITE WOMEN'S HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-30086-KAR (D. Mass., May 6, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of its patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their first and last name, date of birth, medical treatment and/or procedure information, and provider name. The Defendant's failure to safeguard patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Massachusetts law, and Defendant's contracts with patients to safeguard their Private Information, says the suit. Onsite Mammography, LLC develops and operates 3D mammography services. The Company offers project management, installation, and operational services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Klingbail Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onsite Mammography, LLC. The case is styled as Wanda M. Klingbail, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Onsite Mammography, LLC d/b/a OnSite Women's Health, Case No. 1:25-cv-11189 (D. Mass., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Onsite Mammography, LLC doing business as Onsite Women's Health -- https://onsitewomenshealth.com/ -- manages the complete breast health service by providing board-certified and fellowship-trained radiologists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Suzutaro Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: gishimoto@zlk.com ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Norris Sues Over Data Security Failures ----------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA NORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-30080 (D. Mass., May 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifying information and protected health information, which was disclosed to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. In October 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's email environment and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI. However, the Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their private information was compromised until approximately April 21, 2025--seven months later--diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' abilities to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the data breach caused. Headquartered Westfield, MA, Onsite Mammography, LLC provides breast health and imaging services to patients throughout the United States through arrangements with physicians and other healthcare industry partners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street North Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Parker Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Davun Parker, individually, on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., a corporation; APPARO LOGISTICS CA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04573 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03894. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action under California law: violation of California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); failure to pay minimum wages due; failure to pay overtime and double time wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; failure to provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay timely wages; failure to provide sick pay pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code; and violations of the California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daman M. Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 949-800-8601 Fax: 626-795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com PAPE' GROUP INC: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pape' Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Richard Ramirez Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Pape' Group, Inc., Pape' Trucks, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006246 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pape -- https://www.pape.com/ -- offers new and used capital equipment, rental options, extensive parts inventories, and dedicated customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com PARKER-HANNIFIN: Naranjo Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas A. Naranjo, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01465064-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 May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00914. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, filed a Private Attorney General Action ("PAGA") under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains the same factual allegations and asserts the same underlying violations as those in a wage and hour class action against Defendant that was previously removed on March 3, 2025, to this Court.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tao Y. Leung, Esq. Ronnie Arenas, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: tao.leung@hoganlovells.com ronnie.arenas@hoganlovells.com PENINDA FOODS: Faces Telles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- ROSALINO CRUZ TELLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENINDA FOODS, LTD. d/b/a BEDFORD CAFE & RESTAURANT and KONSTANTINOS KOUFALIS and MICHALIS KOUFALIS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03451 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, and failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish a written wage notice. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November 2004 until August 2024 as a dishwasher, cleaner and helper while performing other miscellaneous duties. Peninda Foods, Ltd., d/b/a Bedford Cafe & Restaurant, is a 24-hour diner based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 PETE AND PEDRO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Williams Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Pete and Pedro, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04503 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) ) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://peteandpedro.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pete and Pedro's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Pete and Pedro, LLC operates the website which provides hair care products, shampoos, conditioners, beard oils, deodorants, fragrances, and grooming tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law PHH MORTGAGE: Bids for Class Certification Due March 25, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knapp v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01990 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion for Scheduling Order as follows: (1) Fact discovery shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2025; (2) Expert reports shall be served by Nov. 10, 2025; (3) Rebuttal expert reports shall be served by Dec. 9, 2025; (4) Expert discovery shall be completed by Jan. 20, 2026; (5) Motions for class certification and dispositive motions shall be filed by March 25, 2026; and (6) The parties shall submit a proposed schedule for the remainder of the case within 30 days of the Court's ruling on the dispositive motions or class certification motion. The nature of suit states consumer credit. PHH is a US outsourcer of home loans, processes and originates mortgages on behalf of small banks and some of the world's largest financial firms.[CC] PHILLY AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Serge Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- DOMINICK SERGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLY AUTO, INC. d/b/a 747 MOTORS, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-60869-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Philly Auto, Inc. d/b/a 747 Motors provides used car sales services, automotive finance, and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 732-2792 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com PIPING ROCK: Ama Sues Over Mislabeled Apple Cider Vinegar --------------------------------------------------------- LYNN AMA; CAROLANNE HOLDER; TIFFINI SMITH; and MAGGY GOUSSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIPING ROCK HEALTH PRODUCTS INC.; and NATURE'S TRUTH LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03787 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025) is an action seeking redress against the Defendants' deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Nature's Truth Triple Strength Apple Cider Vinegar Dietary Supplement. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that throughout the applicable Class Period, the Defendants have falsely represented the true nature of their Product. As a result of this false and misleading labeling, the Defendants were able to sell their Products to thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout New York, California, Pennsylvania and the United States. Further, as a result of their reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiffs received Products that did not contain the promised ingredient, or at a minimum, not in the specified amounts, says the suit. Piping Rock Health Products, LLC provides vitamins and health food products. The Company offers vitamins, medicines, incense, nuts and seeds, herbs, supplements, beauty, and pet products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com PITS 33186 CORP: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. PITS 33186 CORP D/B/A CHEVRON - STOP N' SHOP,, Case No. 1:25-cv-22002-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial gas station and minimart. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial gas station and minimart have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial gas station and minimart and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. PITS 33186 CORP D/B/A CHEVRON - STOP N' SHOP, owns, operates and oversees the commercial gas station and minimart within this commercial property, to include all areas open to the public to its commercial gas station and minimart therein.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com PRAGER UNIVERSITY: Chandra Sues Over Data Privacy Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA CHANDRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03984 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the Class Members, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video viewed by the user or audiovisual content purchased -- to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the VPPA. The Prager University Foundation, known as PragerU, is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy group and media organization that creates content promoting conservative and capitalist viewpoints on various political, economic, and sociological topics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 535 Mission Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com PRESTAMOS CDFI: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al., v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher grants in part and denies in part Prestamos's motion to exclude the expert reports of William Briggs, William Manger, and Steven Feinstein, and denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because Briggs, Manger, and Feinstein are qualified and their backgrounds opinions are reliable and fit with the main issue in the case, the opinions satisfy Daubert. But the legal opinions distinguishing this case from Greathouse and interpreting PPP regulations are excluded. So Prestamos's Daubert motion is granted in part and denied in part. Because the Plaintiffs have not shown commonality, typicality, predominance, or superiority, they have failed in their efforts to certify the proposed classes. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Sept. 6, 2024. They believe that class certification is appropriate because liability for each Plaintiff rises and falls with the same contract and PPP regulations. Plaintiffs seek certification of two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): Damages Class: "All persons and entities in California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Missouri, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and New York (collectively, the Class Member States) who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom the SBA provided a SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents and provided to Prestamos all required loan documentation, but as to whom Prestamos both failed to disburse the PPP loan proceeds and reported to the SBA that the loan proceeds were disbursed." Declaratory Judgment Class: "All persons and entities in the Class Member States who, in 2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom the SBA provided a SBA loan number, and who executed and submitted their Loan Documents and provided to Prestamos all required loan documentation, but as to whom Prestamos both failed to disburse the PPP loan proceeds and reported to the SBA that the loan proceeds were disbursed." Prestamos provides lending and cost-free coaching services to the business community. A copy of the Court's Memorandum opinion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UikkOX at no extra charge.[CC] PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al., v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The Court further entered an order that upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Reports and to Exclude Expert Testimony and Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Omnibus Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Reports and to Exclude Expert Testimony, the Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part. Prestamos provides lending and cost-free coaching services to the business community. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HHmLCI at no extra charge.[CC] PROMENADE PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to the Disabled, Brito Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROMENADE PLAZA ASSOCIATION, INC.; and SAILORMEN, INC. D/B/A POPEYES FAMOUS FRIED CHICKEN 4, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21893-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property at 11209 SW 152nd Street, Miami, Florida 33157, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Promenade Plaza Association, Inc. owns and operates commercial properties in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, Florida 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Bid to Strike Angulo Class Allegations Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, a single person; ERIC KELLER, a single person; EBEN NESJE, a single person; KIRK SUMMERS, a single person; CHRISTINE BASH, individually and as a personal representative of THE ESTATE OF STEVEN BASH; RAYMOND SUMERLIN, JR., and MARYANN SUMERLIN, a married couple; and MARTIN WHITNEY and SHERRYL WHITNEY, a married couple, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES WASHINGTON, a non-profit Washington Corporation, also d/b/a/ PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER; DR. JASON A. DREYER, DO, and JANE DOE DREYER, husband and wife and the marital community thereof; and DR. DANIEL ELSKENS DO and JANE DOE ELSKENS, husband and wife and the marital community thereof, Case No. 4:25-cv-05029-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Bastian entered an order denying motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations. The parties shall submit a joint status report with a proposed briefing schedule for consideration of class certification on or before May 15, 2025. The Plaintiffs' Surreply motion to strike is dismissed as moot. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. The Court finds the Plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to support plausible claims at this stage in the proceedings. Therefore, the Defendant Providence's motion to dismiss is denied. The Court declines to rule on the issue of certification at this stage, particularly because a motion to certify has yet to be filed for the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, and thus there is a lack of complete briefing specific to the issue. As such, the Court denies the motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint on Nov. 15, 2024. The proposed classes are: (1) Providence Class: "All surgical patients of the Doctors at Providence who were subject to the RVU compensation scheme in connection with their treatment." (2) MultiCare Class: "All surgical patients of Dr. Jason A. Dreyer, DO, while he was employed in Spokane, Washington, by MultiCare Health Systems, from May 3, 2019, through Nov. 18, 2021." Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare system headquartered in Renton, Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nwjrT at no extra charge.[CC] RAISING CANE'S: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dave Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV08830 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03906. The Complaint alleges that Raising Cane's recorded telephone conversations with Plaintiff "without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff," on the basis of a single outbound call to Plaintiff, and seeks to represent a putative class of "all persons in California whose inbound telephone conversations made with their cellular telephones were recorded without their consent by Defendant" within one year prior to the filing of this lawsuit.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lori Chang, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: 310-586-7700 Fax: 310-586-7800 Email: ChangL@gtlaw.com RB GLOBAL: Inflates Construction Equipment Rental Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HAXTON MASONRY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENATLS, INC.; SUNBELT RENALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03902 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2025) seeks relief from Defendants who conspired to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are engaged in the reciprocal exchange of competitively sensitive information to facilitate the unlawful cartel. As a result, the Defendants have effectively eliminated competition among themselves, says the suit. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges. Headquartered in Westchester, IL, the company provides insights, services, and transaction solutions for buyers and sellers of commercial assets and vehicles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Brian Brooks, Esq. 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com - and - Bruce D. Gerstein, Esq. Deborah A. Elman, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, Suite 2810 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com RB GLOBAL: IPCS Corp. Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------- IPCS CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04825 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of conspiring to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. RB Global and Rouse own and operate Rouse Services, an online service that offers three separate solutions to construction equipment companies: Rouse Appraisals, Rouse Fleet Manager, and Rouse Rental Insights (RRI). Sensing opportunity, the rental company defendants coordinated with Rouse to increase the prices for construction equipment rentals nationwide using Rouse Services. By sharing their competitively sensitive information on a real-time basis, the Defendants have been able to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices charged to Plaintiff and similar entities for approximately a decade. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the rental company defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to Rouse, who fosters and actively aids in the conspiracy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action against Defendants for their price-fixing conspiracy in the construction equipment rental market. Headquartered in Westchester, IL, RB Global is a public company, traded on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges. The company operates as marketplace that provides insights, services, and transaction solutions for buyers and sellers of commercial assets and vehicles worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 x2 E-mail: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com - and - Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Joseph Gentile, Esq. SARRAF GENTILE LLP 10 Bond Street, Suite 212 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 699-8890 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com joseph@sarrafgentile.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Collin J. Schaffhauser, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cschaffhauser@litedepalma.com - and - Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com RB GLOBAL: IZQ Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing Cartel ------------------------------------------------------------------ IZQ Construction LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04872 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for orchestrating and executing an unlawful price-fixing cartel in the construction equipment rental market across the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants and their co-conspirators have formed a cartel to artificially inflate the price and/or decrease the supply of construction equipment rentals from competitive levels. Construction equipment rental Defendants accomplished these anticompetitive goals by entering into agreements with Rouse to supply it with their real time, non-public, competitively sensitive internal data, including detailed information on pricing, utilization rates, inventory levels, and market behavior, all of which are critical to Rouse's pricing algorithms. Construction equipment rental Defendants are no longer competing independently, but instead are relying on aggregated, competitor-derived intelligence to coordinate prices. Rental customers, like Plaintiff, are charged based on Rouse's recommendations, which have effectively replaced, and continue to replace, a competitive price-setting system with a uniform pricing standard, established through collusive data-sharing and coordination. In its own words, Rouse is a "trusted partner in the industrial equipment industry," "serving as a central hub for equipment rental data. Rouse admittedly "collaborates" with hundreds of companies, "serving as the hub of construction equipment data, analytics, and insights." The Rouse Cartel represents an ongoing illegal horizontal agreement among the Defendants to suppress price competition through the exchange of competitively sensitive information ("CSI"), facilitating a per se illegal cartel. To participate in the conspiracy, companies must share their most granular and sensitive pricing data with Rouse – down to the line item of every rental invoice. Rouse collects this data on a daily basis from hundreds of companies – including the largest equipment rental companies in the U.S. – and uses it to produce the Rouse Rental Insights Price ("RRI Price"), a standardized price point for each type of construction equipment. The Defendants knowingly joined and participated in the cartel with the understanding that Rouse would aggregate and use their CSI to inflate rental rates. It is against a single company's self-interest to provide such sensitive data without the assurance that its competitors were doing the same and that everyone would benefit from the shared pricing strategy. Rental companies further describe the RRI Price as a "cheat code" or "safety net" against price drops. Cartel members price within the RRI Price range about 90% of the time. Rouse also provides utilization data that reveals who is renting what equipment, enabling further market control. These observations suggest that the Rouse Cartel has significantly influenced pricing strategies in the construction equipment rental industry. Since implementation of the conspiracy, coordinated pricing has caused rental rates to increase significantly, especially among the largest construction equipment rental companies. The Rouse Cartel has been lucrative for its members, many of whom have reported and continue to report record profits – at the expense of customers like Plaintiff and others who rent construction equipment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff IZQ Construction LLC is a Puerto Rican based limited liability company in the business of residential and commercial construction. RB Global, Inc. is a publicly traded company listed on both the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: +1 866-252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Michael Acciavatti, Esq. Elizabeth McKenna, Esq. Robert A. Wallner, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: +1 212-594-5300 Email: macciavatti@milberg.com emckenna@milberg.com rwallner@milberg.com jhughes@milberg.com - and - Luis V. Almeida-Olivieri, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: +1 866-252-0878 Email: lalmeida@milberg.com RB GLOBAL: Sued Over Rental Construction Equipment Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- 2ND GEN PLUMBING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.; and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05000 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful agreement which include some of the largest construction equipment rental companies in the United States, to artificially increase and fix the prices of rental construction equipment used in both residential and commercial construction projects throughout the United States. RB Global, Inc. provides a marketplace for insights, services, and transaction solutions for commercial assets and vehicles. The Company offers its customers end-to-end transaction solutions for used commercial and other durable assets through its omnichannel platform, which includes auctions, online marketplaces, listing services, and private brokerage services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 Email: katrina@csclassactions.com kyle@csclassactions.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Alicia M. Sandoval, Esq. SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Email: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com asandoval@srkattorneys.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Email: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com - and - David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 940-4000 ext. 12 Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com RENTOKIL NORTH: Kanu Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------ CALEB KANU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a TERMINIX, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00403 (M.D. Fla., April 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Route Manager from 2020 until October 16, 2024. Rentokil North America, Inc., doing business as Terminix, is a pest control company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ, PA 533 Versailles Drive, Suite 100 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 622-6544 Facsimile: (407) 622-6545 Email: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Extends Time to File Response ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS Communications, L.L.C. et al v. Republic Services, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359 (E.D. Mo., Filed Mar. 22, 2021), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply in support of motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Sanchez Must Amend Complaint by May 14 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hector Sanchez, v. Republic Services Customer Resource Center West LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02499-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss Sanchez suit. Republic Services moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss Sanchez's common-law claims for lack of standing to the extent he asserts claims based on laws outside the state of Nevada. The Court states that Sanchez has not established he suffered an injury outside of Nevada. Accordingly, to the extent he is seeking to bring claims for violation of laws outside of Nevada, the current complaint does not establish he has standing to do so. Because Sanchez may be able to add additional factual allegations establishing he has standing for non-Nevada claims, or he may be able to include additional named plaintiffs with claims in other states to establish broader standing, he is permitted to amend his complaint on that basis. The Court further entered an order that no later than May 14, 2025, plaintiff shall either file an amended complaint as permitted by this order or a statement that he does not wish to amend the complaint at this time. If the plaintiff files an amended complaint, the defendants shall respond to that complaint no later than May 28, 2025. If the plaintiff chooses not to amend his complaint, the defendants shall answer the first amended complaint no later than May 28, 2025. The Plaintiff Hector Sanchez was a customer support representative formerly employed at a call center operated by defendant Republic Services Customer Resource Center West, LLC. He filed a putative collective and class action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, arguing Republic Services failed to pay him wages for time worked before and after clocking in for work during weeks when he worked more than 40 hours. Republic Services is a recycling and waste treatment and disposal business. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZoIma5 at no extra charge.[CC] RESULTS CUSTOMER: Warren Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA WARREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RESULTS CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS LLC, d/b/a RESULTS CX, Case No. 1:24-cv-00888-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) certifying a class, defined as: "Plaintiff and all former employees of Defendant whose work supported the Defendant's contracted services to Humana and were subject to termination without cause within 90 days of May 18, 2024 and who have not filed a timely request to opt- out of the class; (b) appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel; (c) appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; (d) approving the form and manner of Notice; and (e) granting such further relief as this Court may deem proper. Results is a company providing customer experience management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pblnmd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com RIGHT COAST: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIGHT COAST RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case 2:25-cv-02455 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.rightcoasttaqueria.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Right Coast Restaurant Group, Inc. is a company that operates in the Restaurants industry. [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 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RIVERSOURCE LIFE: Goldstein Seeks to Reassign Case -------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the case captioned as LEE GOLDSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSOURCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IDS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25STCV11045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2025) has filed a preemptory disqualification praying that the case be reassigned to another judge. RiverSource Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, term, and long term care insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. John N. Sipp, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com js@haffnerlawyers.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03510 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://robinhood.com/us/en/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Robinhood Markets, Inc. operates a financial services platform. The Company offers brokerage and cash management applications such as stocks, exchange-traded funds, options, and cryptocurrency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ROBLOX CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soucek Due Jan. 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY SOUCEK, et al., v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order setting case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Roblox's deadline to amend Cross-Claims: April 30, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiffs and Roblox to June 30, 2025 serve pre-class certification written discovery on each other: Deadline to disclose opening class Oct. 28, 2025 certification experts: Deadline to serve opening class Nov. 11, 2025 certification expert reports: Deadline to disclose rebuttal class Nov. 25, 2025 certification experts: Close of class certification expert Jan. 23, 2026 Discovery: Deadline to move for class certification and Jan. 30, 2026 file Daubert for rebuttal class certification experts: Class Certification Hearing: April 30, 2026 Deadline for Parties to file joint May 7, 2026 CMC statement: Roblox is an American video game developer based in San Mateo, California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lmFDvP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com - and - Andre Mura, Esq. Jacob Seidman, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com jms@classlawgroup.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. Kristine A. Forderer, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq. Caitlin Munley, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 Facsimile: (312) 881-6598 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com kforderer@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rsaldana@cooley.com cmunley@cooley.com - and - Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Jacquie P. Andreano, Esq. Sonja N. Riley-swanbeck, Esq. KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com jandreano@keker.com SRiley-Swanbeck@keker SEGWAY INC: Faces Hanson Suit in C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Segway Inc. captioned as PAUL HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEGWAY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03305-ODW-JDE (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2025). The case is assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early. Segway Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells personal electric transportation devices. The Company offers electric two-wheeled transportation equipment used to provide transportation for people and packages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 910 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 614-7260 Facsimile: (310) 575-8697 Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: breed@kaplanfox.com - and - Clarissa R. Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (650) 838-4350 Email: colivares@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D King, Esq. Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com - and - Matthew B. George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com SEMICOLON 3RD: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ NORBERTO VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEMICOLON 3RD AVE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03765 (D.N.J., May 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.semicoloncafe.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Semicolon 3rd Ave Corp. owns and operates a restaurant business. [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 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SIG SAUER: Glasscock Allowed Leave to File Class Reply Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion for leave to file under seal Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. The Defendant provides and manufactures firearms, electro-optics, ammunition, airguns, suppressors, and remote controlled weapons stations.[CC] SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Tsvetkov Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR TSVETKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC., LIAM K. GRIFFIN, and KRIS SENNESAEL, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00863 (C.D. Cal., April 25, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Skyworks securities between August 8, 2023, to February 5, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Skyworks' expected revenue for the fiscal years 2024 and 2025. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Skyworks' ability to expand its mobile business and capitalize on its growth potential by investing in new technologies to diversify its portfolio of offerings. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Skyworks' client base; notably, that its long-standing relationship with Apple, its largest customer, did not guarantee that Apple would maintain its business relationship with Skyworks for its anticipated iPhone launch. Additionally, the Defendants oversold Skyworks' position and ability to capitalize on AI in the smartphone upgrade cycle. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Skyworks' securities at artificially inflated prices, asserts the complaint. On February 5, 2025, after market close, Skyworks announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 and provided lower-than anticipated revenue guidance for the second quarter of fiscal year 2025. The Company attributed its results and low guidance to a "competitive landscape" that had "intensified" in recent years. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Skyworks' revelation. The price of Skyworks' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $87.08 per share on February 5, 2025, Skyworks' stock price fell to $65.60 per share on February 6, 2025, a decline of over 24% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Skyworks Solutions, Inc. is a developer, manufacturer, and provider of analog and mixed-signal semiconductor products and solutions for numerous applications, including aerospace, automotive, broadband, cellular infrastructure, connected home, defense, entertainment and gaming, industrial, medical, smartphone, tablet, and wearables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com SOUNDHOUND INC: Sued Over Unlawfully Stored Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Atterbury, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOUNDHOUND, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-03782 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") as a result of the Plaintiff and other class members' biometric data being unlawfully collected and stored by the Defendant. Speaker recognition and voice biometrics are central to the Defendant's Houndify platform. Houndify's speaker recognition capabilities enable it to identify and differentiate individual users based on unique vocal characteristics, allowing the Defendant to build detailed, persistent user profiles over time. The Defendant's Privacy Policy and other publicly available communications confirm the Defendant's ability to collect and retain such voice-based data. The Defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of the BIPA, including the necessity of obtaining informed consent and maintaining clear retention and destruction policies for biometric data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has used the SoundHound – Music Discovery application (the "Music Discovery App"), including its voice AI features. The Defendant operates two mobile applications: SoundHound – Music Discovery, a music identification app, and SoundHound Chat AI, a voice assistant app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Travis (SBN 305641) BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 353-7966 Email: ben@bentravislaw.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY, on behalf of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their deadline to file their motion for class certification up to and including May 14, 2025. The Plaintiff's current deadline to file their Motion is April 30, 2025. Importantly, the discovery deadline does not expire until August 29, 2025. Thus, no other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order will be impacted if this Motion is granted. Southeastern Freight is a privately owned American less than truckload trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HxOVQy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Anna Kozak, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC 29926 Telephone: (854) 222-6075 E-mail: LCarroway@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com Anna.Kozak@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: BHill@wfclaw.com LCabassa@wfclaw.com AHeystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: MMcKay@mckaylaw.us STATE FARM: Bid Exclude Expert Reports Denied in Gulick Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA GULICK, ET AL., v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-02573-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order denying State Farm's Motions to Exclude Experts Kirk Felix, Jason Merritt, and to Strike Jason Merritt's Second Rebuttal Report. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Philip Fernbach, is denied, and their Motion to Exclude Expert Laurentius Marais, is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment are each granted in part and denied in part. The class that Plaintiffs seek to certify meets all four of Rule 23(a)’s threshold requirements. And because Plaintiffs showed that Rule 23(b)’s predominance and superiority requirements are met, their Case 2:21-cv-02573-TC-TJJ Document 148 Filed 04/30/25 Page 37 of 43 38 motion for class certification on their breach of contract claim is granted. T The Plaintiffs also seek class certification on their breach claim and their claim for declaratory relief. They seek to represent the following class: "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to a Kansas resident who, from Dec. 6, 2016, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an appraisal report prepared by Audatex and the actual cash value was decreased based upon typical negotiation adjustments . . . to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value." The Plaintiffs Paula Gulick and Sharon Schlehuber brought this putative class action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, asserting a breach of contract claim and seeking a declaratory judgment. State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ho8sar at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN BRETT ARMSTRONG: Betts Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STEPHEN BRETT ARMSTRONG, et al. The case is styled as Amy Betts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEPHEN BRETT ARMSTRONG; LEEANNE QUATTRUCCI; JUDGE MELINDA CROUCH; LYNDSAY RICHARDSON, COURT COORDINATOR; STATE ACTORS OF NORTH CAROLINA; JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:25-cv-00341 (M.D.N.C., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Eston Bid to Certify Class Terminated -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTON, et al., v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876 (D.N.J., Filed May 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order administratively terminating the following: -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, and -- Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Certify Class. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, did not include the required Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs shall file a compliant proposed order that includes the required findings and conclusions by May 2, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United States–based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles. SOA is a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan.[CC] TENET FINTECH: Fails to Pay Settlement Installments, Handal Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEJANDRO HANDAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENET FINTECH GROUP INC. F/K/A PEAK FINTECH GROUP INC., JOHNSON JOSEPH, and JEAN LANDREVILLE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02195-LGD (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay or cause to be paid any of the installments, in whole or in part, concerning their settlement obligations in the binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) in the case styled Handal et al v. Tenet Fintech Group Inc. f/k/a Peak Fintech Group Inc., 1:21-cv-06461-PKC-RER. According to the complaint, in exchange for ending litigation against them, the Defendants promised to pay $1,250,000 U.S. Dollars (USD), in cash, in five (5) installments, the last of which was due on December 1, 2024. In violation of the obligations to which they bound themselves, the Defendants failed to pay any of the installments. Tenet Fintech Group Inc., formerly known as Peak Fintech Group Inc., is the parent company of a group of innovative financial technology (Fintech) and artificial intelligence (AI) companies, located in Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Jing Chen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com jchen@@rosenlegal.com THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE: Faces Suit Over Health Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------ LILA WAKELEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRIVEWORKS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC and THRIVEWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00032-NKM (W.D. Va., April 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all Thriveworks patients who accessed mental health services on the website, www.thriveworks.com. According to the complaint, in pursuit of profit and without regard for their patients' medical privacy, the Defendants aid, employ, agree, and conspire with third parties LinkedIn Corporation and Google LLC to intercept patients' communications as they seek mental health services on the website. This is achieved through Defendants' secret installation of complex computer code on the Website which serves to track and disclose Thriveworks patients' activity, in real time, to third parties LinkedIn and Google, says the suit. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, and contrary to Thriveworks' duties as a medical provider, the Defendants disclosure of patients' protected health information to third parties, is for targeted advertising purposes. This PHI includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the interactions patients take within their private patient portals and the specific therapy treatments they are seeking (e.g., addiction, postpartum depression, sexual abuse, etc.). The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendants' alleged illegal actions. Thriveworks Administrative Services, LLC is a mental health provider of therapy and psychiatry online and in-person to children/teens, adults, couples, and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Erlich, Esq. THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1550 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 791-9087 Facsimile: (703) 722-8114 E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou FAC Dismissed with Leave to Amend -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE PICOU, v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00526-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dena Coggins entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the Defendant's motion to strike. 1. The Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted in part; 2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted; 3. The Defendant's motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is denied; 4. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 5. Within 14 days from the date of entry of this order, the Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint, or alternatively, a notice of his intent to not file a second amended complaint; and 6. The Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action due to the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and comply with a court order. The Defendant has not articulated any of the bases under Rule 12(f) to strike the Plaintiff's class definitions. Accordingly, the court will deny the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's proposed class definitions. In this class action lawsuit, Plaintiff Donte Picou is suing his former employer, Defendant Tracy Logistics LLC, for violating California wage-and-hour and unfair competition laws. On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant in San Joaquin County Superior Court. The Plaintiff filed the operative first amended class action complaint in San Joaquin County Superior Court on January 17, 2024. Tracy is a wholesale grocery supplier on the West Coast. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g6NDtN at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE: Stein Sues Over Wrongful Termination ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Stein, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV ALTERNATIVE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV12707 (Csl. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of the Labor Code, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The Plaintiff was following GPS navigation instructions on his company-issued phone (which he could not deviate from per Company policy), and was inadvertently directed into a "street takeover" incident in downtown Los Angeles. The "street takeover" incident was chaotic and dangerous, as there were approximately 200 parked vehicles, a crowd of pedestrians rioting, and active illegal activity, including cars doing "donuts," fireworks, bonfires, and a heavy police presence. Plaintiff and his partner were blocked in and could not safely exit the incident. Given the urgency and severity of the situation, Plaintiff acted swiftly to notify management or "AVOS" (Autonomous Vehicle Operation Supervisor)--using his company--issued phone and walkie-talkie. He informed management of the dangerous "street takeover" incident, that they were surrounded, could not safely move the vehicle, and were going offline temporarily due to safety concerns. Plaintiff also exited the vehicle briefly to take photographs documenting the situation, which he also immediately transmitted to management. On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff arrived 45 minutes early for his shift. Management informed him that Plaintiff was in "serious trouble" and escorted Plaintiff to a meeting, during which Plaintiff was questioned by management about the "street takeover" incident and his actions taken in response to that incident. Plaintiff was then told by management that he had violated company policy by using his phone While the vehicle was allegedly not in "park." Plaintiff rebutted and explained that the vehicle had been placed in "park," which was corroborated by the in-vehicle camera showing O MPH, and the presence of numerous stopped vehicles around him. Despite this, Defendants put Plaintiff on administrative leave and ordered Plaintiff to surrender his belongings. Defendants then wrongfully terminated Plaintiff two days later, on January 18, 2024, via e-mail. At no point did Plaintiff receive training on how to handle public safety incidents such as a dangerous "street takeover" incident. Plaintiffs actions were taken in good faith to ensure the safety of himself and partner, the support vehicle, and the public, His communications to management, including through texts and photos, and reports through AVOS, were protected disclosures regarding unsafe working conditions and violations Of public safety obligations. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that his termination was substantially motivated by his reports to management, including reporting unsafe working conditions during the street takeover, documenting the incident via photos and messages, and using his company-issued work phone to communicate with management and report a workplace hazard. The Plaintiff's termination constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code and in violation of California public policy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Waymo Roadside Assistant from August 9, 2023, until his wrongful termination on January 18, 2024. The Defendant was and is a Delaware corporation, in the business of private and public transport operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee (State Bar No. 228175) Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan (State Bar No. 316704) DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Renia Zadourian (State Bar No. 331252) LAW OFFICE OF RENIA ZADOURIAN 1968 S. Coast Highway, Ste 3727 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: (310) 708-4404 Email: renia@rzemploymentlaw.com TRUE BOTANICALS: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. True Botanicals, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04517 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://truebotanicals.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in True Botanicals' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. True Botanicals, Inc. operates the website that provides natural skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law TWITCH INTERACTIVE: Blitch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twitch Interactive, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Blitch, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., Case No. CGC25624928 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "CONTRACT/WARRANTY." Twitch Interactive, Inc. -- https://www.twitch.tv/p/company -- designs and develops application software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 619-353-7966 Email: btravis@sshhlaw.com UNITED PARCEL: Teamsters Local Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- TEAMSTERS LOCAL 804, PHILIP PESIRI, CESAR ROSARIO, LUIS NETO and ANTHONY RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02299 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages and unlawful deductions from their wages by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, nearly every member of the putative collective and class worked in excess of 40 hours in a certain pay period. In those weeks that they worked in excess of 40 hours, under Federal and State law, the Plaintiffs were entitled to time and one-half the wages for each hour over 40. Because of the unlawful deductions on April 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs and the putative collective and class action members were not paid the required full rate of time and one half for hours over 40, says the suit. Plaintiff Teamsters Local 804 is a labor union representing, among others, hourly employees employed by Defendant UPS within Long Island, New York City and Westchester County, including the Plaintiffs and putative collective and class members in this action. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. operates an international parcel delivery service with a total of approximately 500,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. CHARNY & WHEELER P.C. 42 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Telephone: (845) 876-7500 Facsimile: (845) 876-7501 E-mail: ncharny@charnywheeler.com UNITED STATES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEMETH-GREENLEAF, et al., v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00407 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification is held in abeyance. The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act. The United States Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency of the United States government that manages the United States federal civil service.[CC] UNITED STATES: Doe Suit Seeks Relief From Project 2025 Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-UNA (D.D.C., April 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other provisions and rules to the extent of all relief sought. The case arises from the Defendants implementation of a policy of governance known as Project 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an ongoing complex scheme to violate the Constitutional rights of protected classes of individuals resulting in injury, future injury, and irreparable harm. Pursuant to the Project 2025 policy, the Defendants attack the truth and thus the First Amendment rights of those who oppose them, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered losses. United States of America is a government entity in North America. [BN] UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9, et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325-JMC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion seeking an enlargement of time to file their motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b), pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant. The Plaintiffs assert that requiring extensive briefing prior to the decision on the motion to dismiss would be premature and potentially wasteful of time and resources for the Court and counsel in this case. The delay requested is far more efficient, and does not prejudice any party. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), the Plaintiffs sought the consent of opposing counsel for this motion, and Defendant takes no position on the relief requested. For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of Law in support of this Motion, the relief requested should be GRANTED. Because the Plaintiffs must affirmatively demonstrate, with evidence, that all of the elements of class certification have been met, there is good cause to extend the 90-day deadline for filing the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs do not have access to the sort of evidence required to support a motion for class certification because such evidence resides in Defendant's sole custody. Department of Justice enforces the law and defends national interests according to the law. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6oKRvx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela M. Keith, Esq. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE 650 Massachusetts Ave., NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 800-0292 E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Dimitar P. Georgiev-Remmel, Esq. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 601 D Street NW | Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 815 – 8654 US CLAIMS: Koprowski Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN KOPROWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US CLAIMS CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a US CLAIMS, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80487-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about January 7, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. US Claims Capital, LLC, doing business as US Claims, is a national litigation funding company based in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashley Sanchez, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; TRIMONT LAND COMPANY, a California corporation; VAIL RESORTS, INC., a business entity of unknown form; THE VAIL CORPORATION; a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CU0001761 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Nevada, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00561. The Complaint brings class claims for the alleged: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all final wages when due; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep required payroll records; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, 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: evan.moses@ogletree.com - and - Ace T. Tate, 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: ace.tate@ogletree.com VERISOURCE SERVICES: Almeda Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Almeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01983 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including without limitation, names, date of birth, gender, and/or Social Security numbers, (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). On February 28, 2024, VeriSource became aware of suspicious activity when it experienced disruption to access across several systems. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, VeriSource determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files (the "Data Breach"). To date, Defendant has provided almost no information regarding the Data Breach, how it occurred, or what vulnerabilities the hackers exploited. Based on the notice letter4 received by Plaintiff, the type of cyberattack involved, and public news reports, it is plausible and likely that Plaintiff's Personal Information was stolen in the Data Breach. The Defendants' purported disclosure amounts to no real disclosure at all, as it fails to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of the Data Breach's critical facts with any degree of specificity. Without these details, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' ability to mitigate the harms resulting from the Data Breach is severely diminished. To make matters worse, Defendant waited nearly fourteen months after the Data Breach occurred to notify Plaintiff and Class Members that the sensitive PII they entrusted to Defendant is now in criminal hackers' possession. This unreasonable and unexplained delay deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members of crucial time to address and mitigate the heightened risk of identity theft and other harms resulting from the Data Breach. Nevertheless, it is clear that Defendant failed in its obligations to reasonably protect the PII in its possession because the hackers were able to peruse Defendant's information systems, including to perform noisy tasks such as reconnaissance operations to locate the valuable files and exfiltrate them. These operations should have been identified if Defendant had implemented reasonable monitoring and alerting tools. Moreover, by virtue of the notifications themselves, Defendant did not encrypt or mask the PII in its system, as no notice would have been required if the data had been encrypted or masked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff understandably and reasonably believed and trusted that Plaintiff's Private Information provided to Defendant. The Defendant is an employee benefits administration service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Michael Moreland, Esq. CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON, PLLC 400 Louisiana St., Ste. 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-757-1400 Email: mmoreland@triallawfirm.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com VERISOURCE SERVICES: Lamb Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------ MARCUS LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01975 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2025) arises out of Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. Despite apparently learning of the data breach on or about August 12, 2024, and determining that private information was involved in the breach, the Defendant reported sending notices to only 1,382 individuals. However, the Defendant admits that the data breach affected approximately four million individuals. Only then did Defendant provide victims, such as Plaintiff, notices of the data breach on April 23, 2025, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of contract, (iv) breach of implied contract, (v) breach of fiduciary duty; (vi) unjust enrichment; (vii) invasion of privacy, (viii) declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Houston, TX, Verisource Services provides employee benefit administrative and enrollment solutions to employer groups. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway, Suite 900 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Faison Extended to June 20 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERNITA FAISON, individually and as a representative of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01024-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the close of fact discovery by approximately 39 days from May 12, 2025, to June 20, 2025: Event Extension Date Cut-off for fact discovery: June 20, 2025 Plaintiff's disclosure of class July 16, 2025 certification expert(s) and report(s): Defendant's disclosure of class Sept. 15, 2025 certification expert(s) and report(s): Rebuttal class certification expert Oct. 15, 2025 disclosures and reports: Close of class certification expert Nov. 14, 2025 Discovery: Motion for Class Cert. Deadline: Dec. 8, 2025 Opposition to Class Cert. Deadline: Feb. 6, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: April 2, 2026 Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QOFGud at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank A. Bartela, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com apersinger@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7078 E-mail: clannin@cov.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled In Re: Waste Management Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants seeking to pursue remedies under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-promulgated thereunder for materially false and misleading statements regarding the regulatory antitrust review of Waste Management's merger, which caused the prices of the notes to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period. On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Oct. 29, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Steven Feinstein. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an Order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The action was certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of the following class: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired any of the following Waste Management redeemable senior notes, between February 13, 2020 and June 23, 2020, inclusive, in one or more domestic transactions, and were damaged thereby: (i) 2.95 percent Senior Notes due 2024; (ii) 3.20 percent Senior Notes due 2026; (iii) 3.45 percent Senior Notes due 2029; or (iv) 4 percent Senior Notes due 2039. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, 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 Plaintiffs were appointed as Class Representatives of the class, and Robbins Geller was appointed as Class Counsel. The Defendants' Daubert motion was denied. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Waste Management Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-893, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Francis P. Karam, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Defendants-Petitioners WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. are represented by: David Dykeman Sterling, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 1 Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 WEBGROUP CZECH: Doe Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WebGroup Czech Republic, AS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02428-SPG-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class action complaint is brought against the Defendants who financially benefited from, or otherwise participated in, a sex trafficking venture in which the Plaintiff was a victim. On Aug. 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 30, 2024. On Feb. 21, 2025, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On Mar. 14, 2025, judgment was entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, AS, et al., Case No. 25-2424, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 21, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on April 25, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on May 26, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - and – Kevin Dooley Kent, Esq. Mark B. Schoeller, Esq. Vanessa L. Huber, Esq. CLARK HILL, PLC Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 2620 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Defendants-Appellees WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, AS, et al. are represented by: Michael Thomas Zeller, Esq. Michael Ernest Williams, Esq. Dylan Bonfigli, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 WELLS FARGO: Flores Action Stayed Pending Class Cert Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit FLORES V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.(re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation), Case No. 3:25-cv-00001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order staying Flores Action until a decision on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in, or earlier disposition of. On Feb. 12, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s motion to consolidate Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 3:25-cv-00001-MMC with Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation. On April 29, 2025, Wells Fargo and Flores filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay the Flores Action, representing that they had conferred regarding the status of the Flores Action in light of the Court’s consolidation order. Wells Fargo and Flores agreed to stay the Flores Action until a decision on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in, or earlier disposition of, In re Wells Fargo Mortgage Modification Litigation. Wells Fargo accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HONvpK at no extra charge.[CC] WELLSPAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT DANIEL TOMASSONE, et al. v. WELLSPAN HEALTH, Case No. 5:24-cv-05460-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order extending class certification deadlines: 1. The deadline for all certification-related discovery to be completed shall be extended from June 13, 2025 to Oct. 10, 2025; 2. The deadline for submission of the Plaintiffs' expert report(s) shall be extended from Aug. 15, 2025 to Dec. 12, 2025; 3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) shall be extended from Aug. 15, 2025 to Dec. 12, 2025; 4. The deadline for submission of the Defendant's expert report(s) shall be extended from Oct. 14, 2025 to Feb. 13, 2026; 5. The deadline for Defendant to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be extended from Oct. 14, 2025 to Feb. 13, 2026; 6. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to submit reply expert report(s), if any, shall be extended from Nov. 14, 2025 to March 13, 2026; 7. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of motion for class certification, if any, shall be extended from Nov. 14, 2025 to March 13, 2026; 8. The telephone status conference currently scheduled for May 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. shall be rescheduled at the convenience of the Court. WellSpan is an American integrated health system located in South-Central Pennsylvania and parts of northern Maryland. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PDpSJN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew C. Ford, Esq. Eric J. Gaspar, Esq. FORD LAW OFFICE LLC 645 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 520 Allentown, PA 18101 Telephone: (484) 273-0425 E-mail: mcf@flolegal.com ejg@flolegal.com - and - Bryan Weir, Esq. Thomas McCarthy, Esq. Brandon Haase, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (703) 243-9423 Facsimile: (703) 243-8696 E-mail: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com brandon@consovoymccarthy.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. Nathalie A. Freeman, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 Facsimile: (215) 568-3439 E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com nfreeman@bakerlaw.com WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Borja Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAELA BORJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00359 (W.D. Wis., May 6, 2025) alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E thereto. According to the complaint, Regulation E of EFTA prohibits financial institutions from charging any overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions without first obtaining affirmative consent based on a proper and accurate disclosure of its overdraft practices. As presented in a stand-alone opt-in disclosure agreement, the Defendant's assessment of overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions against consumers has been and continues to be illegal, says the suit. WESTconsin Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as saving and checking accounts, loans, investment, credit and debit cards, security, ATMs, online banking, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan DeLadurantey, Esq. DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC 136 East Saint Paul Avenue Waukesha, WI 53188 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 Email: nathan@dela-law.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 625-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AK 72201 Email: chris@jefirm.com WHITE CAP: Seeks Temporary Stay of Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LOBDELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WHITE CAP, L.P. (f/k/a HD Supply Construction Supply); WHITE CAP SUPPLY HOLDINGS, LLC, and WHITE CAP MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (1) temporarily staying the briefing schedule on the Motion for Class Certification until class certification discovery is complete, or, in the alternative, (2) for an extension of time to respond to the motion until on or after June 6, 2025 (three weeks after the Plaintiff's May 16 deposition), or, in the alternative, (3) for an extension of time until May 23, 2025 to respond to the motion to class certification. Accordingly, the additional time to respond to the motion to certify is necessary and not being sought for the purposes of delay. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way by the relief sought herein. In the event the Court denies the requested relief to both: (1) stay the class certification briefing, and (2) extend the response deadline to three weeks after Plaintiff's deposition, the Defendant requests an extension of two (2) additional weeks after the current due date of May 9, 2025 to respond to the Motion for Class Certification. In the past days and weeks, the Plaintiff has inundated Defendants with various motions and discovery requests. This matter arises out of a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act in which Plaintiff is alleging that he was forced to submit to an involuntary medical examination under White Cap’s voluntary wellness program. White Cap provides concrete accessories and chemicals, tools and equipment, building materials and fasteners. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XNZkb1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kimberly A. Ross, Esq. Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. FORDHARRISON, LLP 180 N. Stetson Avenue, Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 960-6111 E-mail: kross@fordharrison.com nandrews@fordharrison.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Henry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Henry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006268 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Worldwide Flight Services (WFS) -- https://www.wfs.aero/ https://www.wfs.aero/ -- are a global, world-leading air cargo, passenger & ground handling organisation.[BN] YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Taylor Suit Over Inadequate Data Security --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00656 (D. Conn., April 25, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries YNHHS inflicted on Plaintiff and over 5.5 million others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On March 8, 2025, YNHHS detected unusual activity on its information technology system and was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The actual Data Breach occurred on March 8, 2025. According to the complaint, YNHHS disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. YNHHS's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed and compromised in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff further brings this action against YNHHS and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and declaratory/injunctive relief. Yale New Haven Health System is a nonprofit health system that includes five hospitals, a medical foundation, various multispecialty centers and dozens of outpatient locations and ambulatory sites from New York to Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Brown, Jr. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 199 Walter St., Suite 1500 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (917) 344-7039 E-mail: William.brown@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brumfield Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TYOKA BRUMFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00658 (D. Conn., April 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff’s and Class members’ PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII and financial information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class members in the future, says the suit. Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation provides operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Company offers emergency care, cardiology, orthopedic, neurology, transplantation, and oncology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: arusi@scott-scott.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Mott Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JULIE MOTT, as parent and guardian of J.D.R.A., a minor; and MARIA KRANTZ, as parent and guardian of F.R.K. and E.V.K., minors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00662 (D. Conn., April 28, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiffs and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation provides operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Company offers emergency care, cardiology, orthopedic, neurology, transplantation, and oncology services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Amanda G. Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: clevis@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Email: achristina@lowey.com YALE NEW: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barletta Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BARLETTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTHY SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00722 (D. Conn., May 5, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and other private information, such as, and without limitation, account numbers and health insurance information in a data breach of Defendant's network environment that occurred on or about March 8, 2025. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately secure and safeguard Private Information and PII entrusted to the Defendant for authorized use only, and the Defendant's concomitant obligation to properly store and transfer said information. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class Members must spend significant additional time, money, and energy to protect themselves from these potential crimes to the extent possible. All of this will need to be done to attempt to thwart the clear intent of hackers when they break into databases to steal this information to monetize this data with fraudulent and criminal transactions, says the suit. Yale-New Haven Health Services Corporation provides operates as a non-profit health care organization. The Company offers emergency care, cardiology, orthopedic, neurology, transplantation, and oncology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 0689 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Email: slemberg@limberglaw.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 Email: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Jon Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue - 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com ZENWISE LLC: Class Cert Hearing Modified to Jan. 21, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL SCOTT, v. ZENWISE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04673-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to modify scheduling order: Event New Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion for Class Jan. 21, 2026 Certification: Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 21, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Initial): March 16, 2026 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): April 15, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 19, 2026 All other dates shall be scheduled after the court rules on the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss. Zenwise is a company focused on improving individual health and well-being through its range of dietary supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pM017v at no extra charge.[CC] ZIGNEGO CO: Court Approves $8,885 Incentive Award in Cardenas ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL CARDENAS, v. ZIGNEGO CO., INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00961-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting joint motion for final settlement approval, granting petition for fees and incentive award and dismissing case. The Court grants the plaintiff's unopposed motion for approval of the $8,885.77 incentive award. The court also the class counsel's motion for approval of attorney's fees and costs. The court approves the requested attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $176,417. The court orders that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk will enter judgment accordingly. On August 22, 2022, the plaintiff filed a collective and class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated current and former hourly employees and truck drivers working for the defendant. The plaintiff amended her complaint twice—once in December 2022 and the second time in December 2023 (with leave of court). The court conditionally certified the following FLSA collective class: "All non-office, hourly employees who worked for Zignego Company on one or more jobsites on or after Feb. 17, 2020." The court preliminarily certified the following Rule 23 class: "All hourly employees who received both H & W pay and overtime pay for at least one hour worked between Aug. 22, 2020 and Feb. 20, 2024." Zignego operates as an infrastructure construction company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c6sZlI at no extra charge.[CC] ZUFFA LLC: Parties Seek to Narrow Class Definition in Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway, and Tristan Connelly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Company, LLC f/k/a Zuffa Parent LLC (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC) and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to address Zuffa's motion to deny class certification or, in the alternative, strike class allegations. The Parties Stipulate as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint brings claims on behalf of a Class defined as follows: "All persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from July 1, 2017, until the illicit scheme alleged herein ceases." The Class excludes all persons who are not residents or citizens of the United States unless the UFC paid such persons for competing in a bout fought or broadcast in the United States. Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, Plaintiffs agree to amend and narrow this Class Definition to bring claims on behalf of the Class. The Plaintiffs agree, with Defendants' consent, to file a Second Amended Complaint incorporating this Class Definition no later than May 9, 2025. Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VEQ0cC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Robert C. Maysey, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net pmadden@bm.net jdavis@bm.net rmaysey@bm.net - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. Chris Young, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Brian D. Clark, Esq. Kyle Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 596-4001 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com kjpozan@rlocklaw.com - and - Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGET & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 Facsimile: (702) 655-3763 The Defendants are represented by: William A. Isaacson, Esq. Karen L. Dunn, Esq. Jessica Phillips, Esq. Brette M. Tannenbaum, Esq. Yotam Barkai, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: wisaacson@paulweiss.com kdunn@paulweiss.com jphillips@paulweiss.com btannenbaum@paulweiss.com ybarkai@paulweiss.com - and - Donald J. Campbell, Esq. J. Colby williams, Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222 E-mail: djc@campbellandwilliams.com jcw@campbellandwilliams.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Aaron T. Chiu, Esq. Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq. Laura Washington, Esq. David L. Johnson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com aaron.chiu@lw.com sean.berkowitz@lw.com laura.washington@lw.com david.johnson@lw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***