250514.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 96
Headlines
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 15
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
AKORN INC: Class Claims Jury Trial Scheduled for August 4
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Court Lifts Stay of Shumway Class Action
ANDREW DORTCH: David Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
APPLE INC: Faces New Class Suit Over Unfair App Store Policies
APPLE INC: Pure Sweat Sues Over Violation of Nationwide Injunction
APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Illegal Private Info Collection
ARAMARK SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 29
AVIS BUDGET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 24
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 2
BANK OF AMERICA: Performance Jet Skis Appeals Arbitration Order
BANK OF THE WEST: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn as Moot
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Baby Food Class Action Suit
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: More Time to File Class Certification Sought
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Doe Says
CAMBER ENEGRY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Breach Class Suit
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
CENTURA CORP: Colorado Supreme Court Rules on Discovery Dispute
CIVITAS RESOURCES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
CLEAN SKIN: Faces Moore Suit Over Disposable Towel Products
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Laughlin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Brown Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nowak Suit Says
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Marcial Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Illegally Sells iPhones in Wash., Suit Says
CRYE-LEIKE INC: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces J.D. Class Suit Over Alleged Assault
DRIZLY LLC: Agrees to Settle Withheld Tips Class Suit for $4-Mil.
ETERNITY PET: Disposes Animal Remains in Landfills, Suit Says
GOOD NEIGHBORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
HUUUGE INC: Agrees to Settle Illegal Gambling Class Action Suit
HYWIN HOLDINGS: N.Y. Sup. OKs $1MM Proposed Class Suit Settlement
IMAGINE360 LLC: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $475,000
INSPIRE BRANDS: Court Dismisses Fraud Suit on Lack of Jurisdiction
JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Jacquez Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
LABORATORY SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McMillan Says
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
LEDUC, AB: Settles Sexual Assault Class Suit for $9.5-Mil.
LIMANI LICENSING: Faces Class Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LUX REAL: Faces Class Suit Over Retention of Security Deposits
MDL 3035: Court Narrows Claims Against Symetra
MDL 3146: Panel Denies Transfer of 2 Suits to D. of Colombia
MDL 3147: Panel Denies Centralization of 11 Suits in Pointwise Case
MIAMI CLIPPERS 5: Panradl Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MICHAEL DUNLEAVY: Vail Files Suit in D. Alaska
MISHAN & SONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
NAPCO SECURITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 24
NEW YORK, NY: Waheed Directed to Amend Suit Against HRA and DSS
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Radiator Cooling Fan Defects
NTH DEGREE: Fails to Secure Clients' Private Info, Thomas Says
NUNAVUT: Court Approves $8-Mil. Sex Abuse Class Suit Settlement
OPEN LENDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 30
OPEN LENDING: Bradley Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Mancini Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
PANICALE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Mercedes Claims
PAULA'S CHOICE: Appeals Arbitration Clarification Order in Vargison
ROBERT LARSON: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
ROBOTALKER.COM LLC: Thiessen Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
SAPPHIRE NURSING: Wins Verdict in Nursing Home Care Class Suit
SCRUBS & BEYOND: ClassAction.org Probes Kindthread Data Breach
SL EMPLOYEES INC: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SSPS LLC: Boatner Files Suit in S.D. New York
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Can File Docs Under Seal
TARGET CORP: Buckmaster Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Tovmasyan Suit
TEP ROCKY: $41.7-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Seeks to Certify Resident Class
TTE TECHNOLOGY INC: Herrick Suit Removed to C.D. California
UEM SUNRISE: Court Favors Subsidiary in Homebuyers Class Action
UNIGO LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing in McLee Due Dec. 18
UNITED STATES: Mass. Fair Housing Appeals Order Dissolving TRO
VERMILION, SD: Residents Sue to Recover Income Taxes Collected
VESTA MINE: Gray Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
VESYNC CORP: Chen Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
VESYNC CORP: Chen Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Hearing in Clark Suit Set for May 27
VULCAN MATERIALS: Parrish Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
WALMART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 8
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiff's SAC Tossed
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Suit Says
WESTSIDE COMMUNITY: Ross Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
YALE NEW HAVEN: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI
ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: Teran Files Suit in W.D. Texas
*********
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to August 15
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN,
individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund
Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for
Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities
as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No.
2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend scheduling
order deadlines:
-- Class certification discovery set for Apr. 30, 2025 is
extended to July 31, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in
support, and all supporting evidence for June 15, 2025, is
extended to Aug. 15, 2025.
-- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class
certification and all supporting evidence for July 15, 2025,
is extended to Sept. 12, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class
certification, due by July 27, 2025, is extended to Sept. 26,
2025.
-- The Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by Aug, 14, 2025,
is extended to Oct. 10, 2025.
84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5TH6QG at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased the pharmaceutical Clobetasol directly from
Actavis Holdco U.S. Inc.; Akorn, Inc.; Fougera Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; or
Wockhardt USA LLC at any time from June 3, 2014 to December 31,
2018,
If you purchased the pharmaceutical Clomipramine directly from
Mylan Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; or Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. at any time from May 1, 2013 to
December 31, 2018, a class action lawsuit could affect your
rights.
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
What are the Lawsuits about? A federal court has certified two
classes (the "Clobetasol Class" and the "Clomipramine Class") in
two class action lawsuits brought by Direct Purchasers in In re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No.
2:16-MD-02724. There are two lawsuits that are subject of this
notice - one concerns Clobetasol, and one concerns Clomipramine.
The lawsuits claim that generic drug manufacturers violated federal
antitrust laws, harming competition and causing Class Members to
overpay for the products. The Court selected the Clobetasol and
Clomipramine lawsuits for bellwether trial(s).
The Clobetasol lawsuit is against Akorn, Inc.; Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.;
Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
Inc.; and Wockhardt USA LLC ("Clobetasol Defendants").
The Clomipramine Lawsuit is against Mylan Inc.; Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; and Taro Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A., Inc. ("Clomipramine Defendants").
Some Defendants, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc; Sandoz, Inc.; and
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc., have settled the claims against
them. While they are no longer Defendants in the Lawsuits, the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs continue to seek damages for their
sales of Clobetasol and/or Clomipramine from the remaining
Defendants. All Defendants deny liability as alleged in the
Lawsuits and deny that any Class member is entitled to damages or
other relief.
Each class has a unique class definition and involves unique claims
and defenses. Defendants and class representatives, with some
exceptions, differ between the two classes. Defendants filed
petitions for permission to appeal the orders certifying the
classes; it is possible that one or both classes may be modified or
decertified.
There has been no determination by the Court or a jury that DPPs
have sufficiently proven their allegations against the Defendants
or that, if proven, the conduct caused harm to any Class Members.
No trial has been held. All Defendants deny liability. Defendants
have filed motions for summary judgment, that, if granted, may
resolve one or both lawsuits in their favor. Neither the Court nor
a jury has decided who is right.
Who is included? The Court certified a Clobetasol Class that
includes: All persons or entities that directly purchased
clobetasol (generic clobetasol propionate topical ointment .05%
(15, 30, 45, or 60 gm), topical solution .05% (25 or 50 ml),
topical gel .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm), topical cream .05% (15, 30,
45, or 60 gm), or topical emollient cream .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm))
from one or more of the Clobetasol Defendants in the United States
and its territories and possessions at any time during the period
from June 3, 2014 through December 31, 2018 (the "Clobetasol Class
Period"). Excluded from the Clobetasol Class are (a) the Defendants
and former defendants [] and their officers, directors, management,
employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b) judicial officers and
their personnel, (c) all governmental entities, and (d) all persons
or entities that (i) purchased at least one form of clobetasol
(i.e., ointment, topical solution, topical gel, topical cream, or
topical emollient cream) during the period May 15, 2013 to May 14,
2014 ("Clobetasol Pre Period") and at least one of the same forms
during the Clobetasol Class Period and (ii) whose purchase prices
(measured in dollars and cents) for all of the form(s) purchased in
both Periods did not increase during the Clobetasol Class Period as
compared to the Clobetasol Pre Period.
The Court certified a Clomipramine Class that includes: All persons
or entities that directly purchased clomipramine (generic
clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) from one or
more of the Clomipramine Defendants in the United States and its
territories and possessions at any time during the period from May
1, 2013 through December 31, 2018 (the "Clomipramine Class
Period"). Excluded from the Clomipramine Class are (a) the
Defendants or former defendants [] and their officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b) judicial
officers and their personnel, (c) all governmental entities, and
(d) all persons or entities that (i) purchased at least one
strength of clomipramine (i.e., 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) during
the period March 18, 2012 to March 17, 2013 ("Clomipramine Pre
Period") and at least one of the same strengths during the
Clomipramine Class Period and (ii) whose purchase prices (measured
in dollars and cents) for all of the strength(s) purchased in both
Periods did not increase during the Clomipramine Class Period as
compared to the Clomipramine Pre Period.
The Court's Opinion and Order certifying these Classes are
available at this website: GenericDrugDirectClasses.com. Defendants
filed petitions for permission to appeal the orders certifying the
classes; it is possible that one or both classes may be modified or
decertified.
Who represents the classes? The Court has appointed a group of
attorneys from the law firms of NastLaw LLC; Berger Montague PC;
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP;
Nussbaum Law Group, PC; and Roberts Law Firm P.A., to represent the
classes as "Class Counsel." You don't have to pay Class Counsel or
anyone else to participate or to opt out. Instead, if Class Counsel
gets money or benefits for the classes, they will ask the Court for
attorneys' fees and costs. If approved, these fees and costs would
be deducted from any money obtained or paid separately by the
Defendants. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for
you, but if you do, you may retain that lawyer at your own
expense.
How and when will the Court decide who is right? If the claims
against the remaining Defendants are not resolved by motion
practice, settlement, or otherwise, Class Counsel will have to
prove Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims at trial. A jury trial is
scheduled for August 4, 2025, but the Court has not yet determined
whether the trial will include DPPs' claims or relate to Clobetasol
or Clomipramine. Each product will be the subject of separate
trials, if any trials occur. There is no guarantee that Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs will win either trial, or that they will get
any money for the Direct Purchaser Classes. Any judgment will be
binding on all members of the Clomipramine and Clobetasol Classes
who have not opted out, regardless of who wins.
What are your options? If you are a member of the Clomipramine
Class and/or the Clobetasol Class and you do nothing, you will
remain in those Class(es).
If you did not receive a Notice in the mail, and you think you are
a potential Class Member, please identify yourself or your company
by mailing a letter to the following address: In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation -- Direct Purchasers,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173095, Milwaukee, WI 53217. You may
also send an email to info@GenericDrugDirectClasses.com, or call
877-315-0583. You may be required to submit proof of a qualifying
direct purchase to establish that you are a Class Member.
As a Class Member, unless you opt out of the Class(es), you will be
bound by all orders and judgments of the Court as to the claims
relating to Clomipramine and/or Clobetasol in these lawsuits. If
money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified.
If you are a member of the Clomipramine Class and/or the Clobetasol
Class, and you want to keep your rights to sue the remaining
Defendants on your own about the claims in the lawsuits, you must
request exclusion from (or opt out of) one or both of the Classes.
You must mail your request to opt out by July 1, 2025, to the
following address: In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation -- Direct Purchasers, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173095, Milwaukee, WI 53217. You may also send an email to
info@GenericDrugDirectClasses.com. If you already submitted a
request to exclude yourself from the previous settlement classes
and do not want to stay in the Clomipramine Class and/or the
Clobetasol Class, you still need to exclude yourself now. You can
find out how to exclude yourself at the website
GenericDrugDirectClasses.com or by calling 877-315-0583.
If you are a member of both the Clobetasol Class and the
Clomipramine Class, you may exclude yourself from one class, both
classes, or neither class.
For more information: Go to the website
GenericDrugDirectClasses.com or call 877-315-0583 for more
information on the Classes, the Lawsuits, and your potential rights
and options. The website includes, for example, a list of the
National Drug Codes ("NDCs") for Clobetasol and Clomipramine.
Contacts
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
Joseph N. Roda, Esq.
(215) 923-9300 [GN]
AKORN INC: Class Claims Jury Trial Scheduled for August 4
---------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased the pharmaceutical Clobetasol directly from
Actavis Holdco U.S. Inc.; Akorn, Inc.; Fougera Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; or
Wockhardt USA LLC at any time from June 3, 2014 to December 31,
2018, Or If you purchased the pharmaceutical Clomipramine directly
from Mylan Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; or Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. at any time from
May 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018, a class action lawsuit could
affect your rights.
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
What are the Lawsuits about? A federal court has certified two
classes (the "Clobetasol Class" and the "Clomipramine Class") in
two class action lawsuits brought by Direct Purchasers in In re:
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No.
2:16-MD-02724. There are two lawsuits that are subject of this
notice -- one concerns Clobetasol, and one concerns Clomipramine.
The lawsuits claim that generic drug manufacturers violated federal
antitrust laws, harming competition and causing Class Members to
overpay for the products. The Court selected the Clobetasol and
Clomipramine lawsuits for bellwether trial(s).
The Clobetasol lawsuit is against Akorn, Inc.; Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.;
Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
Inc.; and Wockhardt USA LLC ("Clobetasol Defendants").
The Clomipramine Lawsuit is against Mylan Inc.; Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.; and Taro Pharmaceuticals
U.S.A., Inc. ("Clomipramine Defendants").
Some Defendants, Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc; Sandoz, Inc.; and
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc., have settled the claims against
them. While they are no longer Defendants in the Lawsuits, the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs continue to seek damages for their
sales of Clobetasol and/or Clomipramine from the remaining
Defendants. All Defendants deny liability as alleged in the
Lawsuits and deny that any Class member is entitled to damages or
other relief.
Each class has a unique class definition and involves unique claims
and defenses. Defendants and class representatives, with some
exceptions, differ between the two classes. Defendants filed
petitions for permission to appeal the orders certifying the
classes; it is possible that one or both classes may be modified or
decertified.
There has been no determination by the Court or a jury that DPPs
have sufficiently proven their allegations against the Defendants
or that, if proven, the conduct caused harm to any Class Members.
No trial has been held. All Defendants deny liability. Defendants
have filed motions for summary judgment, that, if granted, may
resolve one or both lawsuits in their favor. Neither the Court nor
a jury has decided who is right.
Who is included? The Court certified a Clobetasol Class that
includes: All persons or entities that directly purchased
clobetasol (generic clobetasol propionate topical ointment .05%
(15, 30, 45, or 60 gm), topical solution .05% (25 or 50 ml),
topical gel .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm), topical cream .05% (15, 30,
45, or 60 gm), or topical emollient cream .05% (15, 30, or 60 gm))
from one or more of the Clobetasol Defendants in the United States
and its territories and possessions at any time during the period
from June 3, 2014 through December 31, 2018 (the "Clobetasol Class
Period"). Excluded from the Clobetasol Class are (a) the Defendants
and former defendants [] and their officers, directors, management,
employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b) judicial officers and
their personnel, (c) all governmental entities, and (d) all persons
or entities that (i) purchased at least one form of clobetasol
(i.e., ointment, topical solution, topical gel, topical cream, or
topical emollient cream) during the period May 15, 2013 to May 14,
2014 ("Clobetasol Pre Period") and at least one of the same forms
during the Clobetasol Class Period and (ii) whose purchase prices
(measured in dollars and cents) for all of the form(s) purchased in
both Periods did not increase during the Clobetasol Class Period as
compared to the Clobetasol Pre Period.
The Court certified a Clomipramine Class that includes: All persons
or entities that directly purchased clomipramine (generic
clomipramine hydrochloride 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) from one or
more of the Clomipramine Defendants in the United States and its
territories and possessions at any time during the period from May
1, 2013 through December 31, 2018 (the "Clomipramine Class
Period"). Excluded from the Clomipramine Class are (a) the
Defendants or former defendants [] and their officers, directors,
management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (b) judicial
officers and their personnel, (c) all governmental entities, and
(d) all persons or entities that (i) purchased at least one
strength of clomipramine (i.e., 25, 50, or 75 mg capsules) during
the period March 18, 2012 to March 17, 2013 ("Clomipramine Pre
Period") and at least one of the same strengths during the
Clomipramine Class Period and (ii) whose purchase prices (measured
in dollars and cents) for all of the strength(s) purchased in both
Periods did not increase during the Clomipramine Class Period as
compared to the Clomipramine Pre Period.
The Court's Opinion and Order certifying these Classes are
available at this website: GenericDrugDirectClasses.com. Defendants
filed petitions for permission to appeal the orders certifying the
classes; it is possible that one or both classes may be modified or
decertified.
Who represents the classes? The Court has appointed a group of
attorneys from the law firms of NastLaw LLC; Berger Montague PC;
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP;
Nussbaum Law Group, PC; and Roberts Law Firm P.A., to represent the
classes as "Class Counsel." You don't have to pay Class Counsel or
anyone else to participate or to opt out. Instead, if Class Counsel
gets money or benefits for the classes, they will ask the Court for
attorneys' fees and costs. If approved, these fees and costs would
be deducted from any money obtained or paid separately by the
Defendants. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for
you, but if you do, you may retain that lawyer at your own
expense.
How and when will the Court decide who is right? If the claims
against the remaining Defendants are not resolved by motion
practice, settlement, or otherwise, Class Counsel will have to
prove Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims at trial. A jury trial is
scheduled for August 4, 2025, but the Court has not yet determined
whether the trial will include DPPs' claims or relate to Clobetasol
or Clomipramine. Each product will be the subject of separate
trials, if any trials occur. There is no guarantee that Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs will win either trial, or that they will get
any money for the Direct Purchaser Classes. Any judgment will be
binding on all members of the Clomipramine and Clobetasol Classes
who have not opted out, regardless of who wins.
What are your options? If you are a member of the Clomipramine
Class and/or the Clobetasol Class and you do nothing, you will
remain in those Class(es).
If you did not receive a Notice in the mail, and you think you are
a potential Class Member, please identify yourself or your company
by mailing a letter to the following address: In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation – Direct Purchasers,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173095, Milwaukee, WI 53217. You may
also send an email to info@GenericDrugDirectClasses.com, or call
877-315-0583. You may be required to submit proof of a qualifying
direct purchase to establish that you are a Class Member.
As a Class Member, unless you opt out of the Class(es), you will be
bound by all orders and judgments of the Court as to the claims
relating to Clomipramine and/or Clobetasol in these lawsuits. If
money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified.
If you are a member of the Clomipramine Class and/or the Clobetasol
Class, and you want to keep your rights to sue the remaining
Defendants on your own about the claims in the lawsuits, you must
request exclusion from (or opt out of) one or both of the Classes.
You must mail your request to opt out by July 1, 2025, to the
following address: In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation – Direct Purchasers, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173095, Milwaukee, WI 53217. You may also send an email to
info@GenericDrugDirectClasses.com. If you already submitted a
request to exclude yourself from the previous settlement classes
and do not want to stay in the Clomipramine Class and/or the
Clobetasol Class, you still need to exclude yourself now. You can
find out how to exclude yourself at the website
GenericDrugDirectClasses.com or by calling 877-315-0583.
If you are a member of both the Clobetasol Class and the
Clomipramine Class, you may exclude yourself from one class, both
classes, or neither class.
For more information: Go to the website
GenericDrugDirectClasses.com or call 877-315-0583 for more
information on the Classes, the Lawsuits, and your potential rights
and options. The website includes, for example, a list of the
National Drug Codes ("NDCs") for Clobetasol and Clomipramine.
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Court Lifts Stay of Shumway Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shumway, et al., v.
Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Case No.
2:23-cv-00699 (D. Ariz., Filed April 25, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Douglas L. Rayes entered an order lifting stay and adopting the
parties proposed deadlines pertaining to the class certification
phase.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Allstate operates as an insurance firm.[CC]
ANDREW DORTCH: David Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Dortch. The
case is styled as Gaines David, on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Andrew Dortch, Case No. 01-2025-CA-001212 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Alachua Cty., April 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."[BN]
APPLE INC: Faces New Class Suit Over Unfair App Store Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is in the crosshairs of a new class-action lawsuit
regarding its App Store policies and practices, according to Hagens
Berman, the same law firm that secured a $100 million settlement on
behalf of iOS developers harmed by its fees and commissions.
The new lawsuit was filed May 2, 2025, following news that a
federal judge found the tech giant in contempt of court for
violating a 2021 antitrust injunction which required Apple to
permit its app developers to sell subscriptions and other in-app
products directly to their customers using links within their apps.
Without the injunction in place Apple charges app developers
uniform transaction fees (defaulting at 30%, and 15% under some
programs). The court found that Apple implemented a scheme to
violate the injunction and prevent developers from directing
customers to their own websites and payment platforms.
"It appears as though Apple has been caught red-handed blatantly
seeking to undercut the law," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman
managing partner and co-founder. "We believe app developers deserve
a fair market to promote and sell their products, and the world's
largest corporation doesn't get to bully them out of this
billion-dollar revenue stream."
If you sold an in-app digital product (including subscriptions)
through Apple's App Store after Jan. 16, 2024, find out your rights
as an iOS app developer.
Apple's Injunction Violations
The class-action lawsuit against Apple states that Apple has been
found to have conducted internal analyses that showed its intention
to circumvent the injunction to unlawfully preserve its "ill-gotten
gains" and engaged in a series of scare tactics that served to keep
developers from earning their fair share of revenue from
subscription apps and in-app purchases.
Under the injunction, iOS developers were to save billions of
dollars in revenues by processing their own payments, funds they
could reinvest in their apps and operations. But "[t]o neutralize
the effect of the injunction and illicitly retain this revenue
stream, Apple engaged in a series of contrivances for which it has
now been held in contempt," the lawsuit explains.
The court ultimately held that Apple willfully violated the
injunction to protect its revenues, and then "reverse engineered
justification[s] to proffer to the Court" often with "lies on the
witness stand," according to the class action. The evidence showed
that while one senior Apple executive "advocated that Apple comply
with the Injunction," Mr. Cook ignored this advice and allowed
others in "his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose
poorly," the complaint details.
"Apple's scheme worked as planned," the lawsuit states. "Although
the injunction has been in ‘effect' for over 15 months, Apple has
been able to identify only 34 developers who have even applied to
offer linked-out payments through their apps. This represents an
infinitesimal 0.025% of the 136,000 developers who offer apps
through the App Store."
"Apple's lip service concealed its real intentions from the start:
to use every trick in the book to subvert the court's order, in
flagrant violation of the law," Berman said. "This was not a
victimless crime."
Apple's Harm to iOS Developers
The lawsuit's named plaintiff is Pure Sweat Basketball Inc., a
corporation offering an app used by players across the country to
train and improve their basketball skills. Had Apple complied with
the injunction, as required, Pure Sweat would have been able to
sell subscriptions to its app directly to its customers, using
"link-out" buttons directing customers to Pure Sweat's own
website.
As a result of Apple's misconduct, attorneys estimate that
potentially more than 100,000 similarly situated app developers
were prevented from selling in-app products (including
subscriptions) directly to their customers, and were forced to pay
Apple commissions on in-app sales that Apple was not entitled to
receive.
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Apple on
behalf of iOS app developers.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contact:
Ash Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
(206) 268-9363 [GN]
APPLE INC: Pure Sweat Sues Over Violation of Nationwide Injunction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure Sweat Basketball Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case:
4:25-cv-03858 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2025), is brought arising from
Apple's willful violation of a nationwide injunction (hereafter the
"Injunction") that was intended to expose Apple to more meaningful
competition.
The Injunction Apple defied was initially entered after a bench
trial in 2021 and became effective after exhaustion of appeals on
January 16, 2024. It enjoined Apple's use of certain
"anti-steering" rules that prevented, among other things, app
developers from competing with Apple on payments for in-app
products—i.e., app enhancements, content, and other features sold
for use within an app. For every in-app purchase a consumer makes,
Apple charges the app developer uniform transaction fees
(defaulting at 30%, and 15% under some programs). Ostensibly, Apple
could face competition from developers themselves, who can sell
in-app content from their own websites, where Apple charges no
fees. But Apple's anti-steering rules effectively shut this down,
making it exceedingly difficult for developers to communicate
alternative payment options and discounts to drive customers to
their websites.
Apple's contempt is far from a victimless offense. In addition to
undermining the judicial process, Apple's defiance of the
Injunction has harmed Apple's developers. These are the app
developers who populate Apple's App Store with innovative apps that
give Apple's devices ever-evolving functionality and utility. Had
Apple complied with the injunction as issued, Apple's own studies
show that developers would have saved potentially billions in
in-app purchase commissions. These are ill-gotten gains and Apple
should not be permitted to retain them. If it does, Apple will have
profited handsomely for violating a court order and scheming to
retain revenues to which it had no legal entitlement. That is not
an outcome the law, or principles of equity, permit.
Apple should be made to disgorge its wrongful profit, and
Developers are entitled to be made whole. That is what this lawsuit
seeks to accomplish. On behalf of a proposed Class of developers
harmed by Apple's conduct, Plaintiff Pure Sweat Basketball asserts
claims for unjust enrichment, intentional interference with
business expectancy, and constructive trust. Each of these rights
of action commands that Apple relinquish the revenues it illicitly
retained by violating the Injunction, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Pure Sweat offers cutting-edge online and in-app
basketball training.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, and smart watches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: benh@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Joseph Vanek, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER
321 North Clark Street, 25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
Email: ekelly@sperlingkenny.com
jvanek@sperlingkenny.com
arodriguez@sperlingkenny.com
- and -
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER
1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-5800
Facsimile: (615) 252-5853
Email: pcramer@sperlingkenny.com
APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Illegal Private Info Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sellers, writing for Apple World Today, reports that a
settlement has been reached with Apple in a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of current or former owners or purchasers of a
Siri-enabled iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod,
iPod touch, or Apple TV ("Siri Device/Devices") "whose confidential
or private communications were allegedly obtained by Apple and/or
shared with third parties as a result of an unintended Siri
activation."
Apple denies all of the allegations made in the lawsuit and denies
that Apple did anything improper or unlawful. The proposed
settlement is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing of any kind
by Apple. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California approved this notice.
If you've received notice of the settlement (as I have), Apple's
records indicate that you may be a member of the Settlement Class
and may be entitled to receive a payment. You are a member of the
Settlement Class if you are a current or former owner or purchaser
of a Siri Device, you reside in the United States or its
territories, and your confidential or private communications were
obtained by Apple and/or were shared with third parties as a result
of an unintended Siri activation between September 17, 2014 to
December 31, 2024. Under the terms of the Settlement, you are
eligible to submit a Claim Form to receive a payment if the Court
approves the Settlement and it becomes final.
What does the Settlement provide?
Apple has agreed to pay US$95 million into a settlement fund. After
deducting Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, Service
Awards, and the costs of notice and settlement administration
(including any taxes). For more information about how distributions
will be made to Settlement Class Members, go to
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com.
What are the expected payments?
Settlement Class Members may submit claims for up to five Siri
Devices on which they claim to have experienced an unintended Siri
activation during a conversation intended to be confidential or
private. Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims shall
receive a pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount for a Class
Payment up to a cap of $20 per Siri Device.
The amount available to Settlement Class Members will increase or
decrease pro rata depending on the total number of valid claims
submitted, and Siri Devices claimed. The final amount will not be
known until all claims are evaluated.
How do I file a claim?
In order to receive a payment, you must complete and submit a valid
Claim Form by July 2, 2025. You may submit claims for up to five
Siri Devices. Claims may be submitted online at
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com or mailed to the address on
the form. If you submit a Claim Form by mail, it must be
post-marked by July 2, 2025. [GN]
ARAMARK SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to July 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue the status
conference and the deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for
class certification:
The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification shall be extended from May 30, 2025 to July 29,
2025;
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;
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
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.
Aramark is an American food service and facilities services
provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9txAbY 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
AVIS BUDGET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Avis Budget Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:CAR) securities between
February 16, 2024 and February 10, 2025. Avis Budget, with its
subsidiaries, provides car and truck rentals, car sharing, and
ancillary products and services to businesses and consumers
internationally.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Avis
Budget Group, Inc. (CAR) Misled Investors Regarding the Company's
Strategy to Accelerate Fleet Rotations
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Avis Budget crafted and implemented a
plan to significantly accelerate its fleet rotation in the fourth
quarter of 2024; (ii) the foregoing acceleration shortened the
useful life of the majority of the Company's vehicles in the
Americas segment, thereby reducing their recoverable value; (iii)
as a result, Avis Budget would be forced to recognize billions of
dollars in impairment charges and incur substantial losses; (iv)
all the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a significant
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (v)
accordingly, Avis Budget's financial and/or business prospects were
overstated.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 11, 2025, Avis Budget released
disappointing financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year 2024, including a loss of $1.96 billion, or $55.66 per share,
for the quarter, compared to a profit of $259 million, or $7.10 per
share, for the same period in the prior year. Avis Budget
attributed these results to "a change in strategy to significantly
accelerate fleet rotations, which resulted in shortening the useful
life of the majority of our vehicles in the Americas segment[,]"
causing "a one-time non-cash impairment of $2.3 billion and other
non-cash related charges of $180 million." The press release also
announced that the Company's CEO would be stepping down and the
Company's Chief Transformation Officer would be taking over the
role. On this news, Avis Budget's stock price fell $6.12 per share,
or almost 7%, to close at $83.59 per share on February 11, 2025.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Avis Budget Group, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court
by June 24, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, PLLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of investors of Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:
BKKT). The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors
who acquired their securities from March 25, 2024 to March 17,
2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June
2, 2025.
If you incurred significant losses and want to act as the lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit or determine if you are
eligible to receive a potential recovery of your losses, visit the
link provided:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/bakkt-holdings-inc-2
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges Defendants: (1) misrepresented the stability and/or
diversity of its crypto services revenue; (2) failed to disclose
Bakkt's Crypto services revenue was substantially dependent on a
single contract with Webull; (3) misrepresented its ability to
maintain key client relationships. As a result of the foregoing,
the Complaint alleges Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
About Johnson Fistel, PLLP | Top Law Firm, Securities Fraud,
Investors Rights:
Johnson Fistel, PLLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have
purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops
and learn how Johnson Fistel, PLLP can help you recover your
losses. For more information about the firm and its attorneys,
please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Achievements: In 2024, Johnson Fistel was honored to be ranked in
the Top 10 Plaintiff Law Firms by the ISS Securities Class Action
Services. This recognition underscores our effectiveness in
advocating for investors, having recovered approximately
$90,725,000 for aggrieved clients in cases where we served as lead
or co-lead counsel. This notable accomplishment marks the eighth
occasion our firm has been recognized as a top plaintiffs'
securities law firm in the United States, as determined by the
total dollar value of final recoveries.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Johnson Fistel, PLLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.
Contact:
James Baker, Esq.
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.,
Johnson Fistel, PLLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 814-4471
E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com
fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Performance Jet Skis Appeals Arbitration Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE JET SKIS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Performance Jet Skis, LLC, et al., individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Bank of America, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02328-MRA-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, was brought against the Defendants for
breach of contract and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.
On Apr. 26, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and a motion to dismiss the case.
On Aug. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel judicial
reference.
On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first ex parte
application for extension of time to file response to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On Mar. 14, 2025, Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an Order
granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and denying
the Plaintiffs' motion to compel judicial reference. Furthermore,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiffs' ex parte
application for extension of time to file response to the motion to
dismiss were also denied as moot. Neither party requested a stay of
proceedings pending arbitration. Thus, the case was dismissed
without prejudice.
The appellate case is entitled Performance Jet Skis, LLC, et al. v.
Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 25-2438, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 16,
2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 21,
2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 27, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 25, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants PERFORMANCE JET SKIS, LLC, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
490 43rd Street, Suite 122
Oakland, CA 94609
- and –
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD, PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA, NA, et al. are represented
by:
Brooks Russell Brown, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
- and –
Andrew Kim, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
- and –
Laura A. Stoll, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
BANK OF THE WEST: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manzo v. Bank of the West;
BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-05848 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Nov. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order
withdrawing as moot the Plaintiffs motion for class certification.
-- All dates pertaining are vacated. All remaining dates in this
Action will be vacated upon receipt of a request to dismiss.
-- The Parties have stipulated that a Request of Dismissal will
be filed by July 1, 2025.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Bank of the West was an American financial institution
headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States.[CC]
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Baby Food Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight reports that past
presentations and posts have addressed the defense of consumer
class action cases via motions to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Briefly, most consumer class action cases are
brought in (or removable to) federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, Public Law 109-2, which grants jurisdiction
to the federal district courts to hear class action cases in which
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the class comprises
at least 100 members and at least one class member is diverse from
at least one defendant. Despite the jurisdictional grant, no case
may proceed in federal court absent satisfaction of the
constitutional requirement that the plaintiffs allege a legally
cognizable injury. When plaintiffs claim to have suffered personal
injury or property damage, the injury is apparent. (Whether the
claimed injury actually occurred and, if so, whether the defendant
is legally responsible, are questions that go to the merits, not to
jurisdiction.) But when the alleged injury is purely economic, the
defendant may have a jurisdictional defense as well.
The successful assertion of a jurisdictional defense in a class
action case alleging purely economic injury is illustrated by a
March 2025 decision involving claims based on the purported
presence of heavy metals, such as lead, in baby food. In re
Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. Baby Food Litig., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2025
WL 862382 (N.D.N.Y. March 19, 2024). The plaintiff class alleged
two theories of economic injury, referred to as "benefit of the
bargain" and "price premium." No claims were made in this case for
personal injury from ingestion of the accused products.
The plaintiffs' benefit of the bargain theory posited that the
manufacturer's labeling and promotion of its products
misrepresented their characteristics, and that the presence of
heavy metals both 1) rendered the statements false or misleading
and 2) made the products unusable. The statements on which the
class relied were that products' branding as "organic," "natural,"
"USDA-Certified Organic," "real food for babies," "nothing
artificial added," "non-GMO" and "free from artificial
preservatives, colors and flavors."
In support of their benefit of the bargain theory, the plaintiffs
alleged that the presence of heavy metals in the products rendered
them unfit for their intended use (i.e., that they were effectively
worthless). Stated differently, paying money for a product of
certain quality or utility based on the manufacturer's
representations -- when, in fact, the product was worthless because
those representations were false -- would by definition deny the
purchasers the benefit of their bargain.
The court found that the plaintiffs' benefit of the bargain theory
failed on two grounds. First, the plaintiffs did not plausibly
allege that the purported heavy-metal contaminants rendered false
or misleading general statements about the product's quality.
Second, they did not plausibly allege that the baby food failed to
serve its intended purpose (i.e., feeding their babies):
Plaintiffs allege, in a conclusory manner, that the baby foods
they purchased contained unsatisfactory levels of heavy metals. But
plaintiffs do not say more. Instead, plaintiffs ask the court to
infer from these assertions that the alleged presence of heavy
metals rendered the food unsafe, unusable, and therefore,
worthless.
Plaintiffs allege that they paid for safe and healthy baby
food for their children. But they do not allege that defendant's
products were worth something less than this or unusable.
Plaintiffs only allege that defendant branded the products as
"organic," "natural," "USDA-Certified Organic," "real food for
babies," "nothing artificial added," "non-GMO," and "free from
artificial preservatives, colors and flavors," but do not further
allege that the alleged contaminants rendered those representations
to be false or misleading. Nor have plaintiffs pleaded that the
goods failed to serve their intended purpose.
Therefore, this Court does not find the injury alleged by
plaintiffs to be either concrete or particularized, and plaintiffs'
benefit of the bargain theory will be rejected as a basis for
finding standing.
The plaintiffs' price premium theory in this case was largely a
slightly different version of their benefit of the bargain theory.
Under the latter, the claim was that the purportedly contaminated
baby food was essentially worthless. Under the former, the claim
was that the products were worth less than the prices paid by
plaintiffs, with the overlapping element that the purportedly false
statements misled them regarding the products' diminished value
(price premium) or complete lack of value (benefit of the
bargain).
Given that the price premium theory was basically a less absolute
version of the benefit of the bargain theory, the court's rejection
of it followed the same logic:
First, plaintiffs fail to allege any facts that this baby food
was marketed as superior such that a misrepresentation existed with
respect to the existence of heavy metals. Second, plaintiffs have
not alleged any cheaper, comparable products to support the notion
of a premium. Instead, plaintiffs express regret about what they
paid for a product given an unfavorable report—but they do not
state what they would have done differently had they known to
plausibly give rise to the notion they paid a premium.
Although the price premium theory in this case was a variation on
the benefit of the bargain theory, that is neither always nor
necessarily the case. A more conventional price premium argument is
seen when the products at issue are labeled or otherwise promoted
as premium products. For example, "all natural" or "nothing
artificial" products may indeed command a higher price than options
that use artificial colors or flavors. Id. at xx (explaining that
cognizable injury may exist under a price premium theory if a
consumer is wrongly induced to pay a "premium" for a product that
is falsely advertised as "superior").
As noted in the decision, the plaintiffs' claims and the grounds on
which the court dismissed them closely tracked cases in New Jersey
and Virginia also involving purported heavy metal contamination of
baby food.
The plaintiffs noticed an appeal of the district court's decision,
but resolution of the appeal is unlikely to occur before the second
half of 2026. [GN]
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: More Time to File Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis et al v. Berkshire
Hathaway, Inc. et al., (re: GEICO Data Breach Class Action Litig.),
Case No. 1:21-cv-02210-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending class certification and expert report
deadlines, and adjourning the settlement conference currently set
for May 20, 2025.
The parties have agreed to conduct private mediation and have
engaged a mediator. However, one of the lead attorneys for one of
the parties has a medical condition that will require a procedure
this summer, followed by a period of time for recovery. The parties
have therefore agreed to a private mediation date of Aug. 14, 2025,
for an in-person mediation in New York.
Considering the scheduling of the private mediation, the parties
seek to adjourn the court settlement conference currently set for
May 20, 2025, to a date to be determined upon the Parties’
request after the completion of mediation.
The parties further seek to extend the deadlines for class
certification and expert reports, as follows:
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Expert
Reports: July 15, 2025.
The Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification, Daubert
Motion as to the Plaintiffs' experts, and Expert Reports: Oct.
15, 2025.
The Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Class
Certification, Daubert Motion as to Defendants' experts,
Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion, and Rebuttal Expert
Reports: Jan. 15, 2026.
The Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion and
Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Daubert Motion:
Jan. 30, 2026.
The Plaintiffs' Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion: Feb. 16, 2026.
Berkshire Hathaway is an American multinational conglomerate
holding company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rjx4nu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen L. Wenger, Esq.
Brian L. Bank, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
1301 Riverplace Blvd., 10th Floor
Jacksonville, FL 32207-9047
Telephone: (904) 792-8925
Facsimile: (904) 467-3461
E-mail: kristen.wenger@rivkin.com
brian.bank@rivkin.com
- and -
Melissa R. Clark, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (917) 336-0171
Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
E-mail: mclark@ahdootwolfson.com
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Doe Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE I and JANE DOE I, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-03925 (N.D. Cal., May
5, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of current and former
Blue Shield members whose communications, medical information,
financial information, and other personal information, Defendant
Blue Shield shared with unauthorized third parties through
invisible third-party online surveillance technologies on Blue
Shield websites.
According to the complaint, Blue Shield recently admitted to
disclosing its members' Health Information, i.e., private
communications and other protected information, to Google between
2021 and 2024, and further acknowledged that the disclosures were
made inconsistent with permissible use of this protected data.
These admissions are memorialized in a Notice of Data Breach that
Blue Shield issued to approximately 4.7 million Blue Shield members
on or around April 9, 2025. While the Notice reflects extensive
unlawful violations of Plaintiffs' and Class members' privacy
rights, it omits large swaths of Blue Shield's misconduct. Based on
the investigation of counsel, Blue Shield also configured its
websites to disclose protected communications and data to third
parties other than Google, including some of the largest data
companies in the world.
For example, archived versions of the Blue Shield websites from the
past several years showed transmittals from sensitive pages to,
e.g., Meta (Facebook), LinkedIn, TikTok, NextRoll, Inc., Verint
Systems, Inc., Marketo (now part of Adobe), Adelphic (now owned by
Viant Technology LLC), Dynatrace, and Adobe, who also deploy their
third-party website surveillance products for the monetization of
user data and user profiling, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were paying member of Blue Shield during the
relevant time period and received the Google Data Breach Notice.
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA is
an independent member of the Blue Shield Association that provides
health insurance to consumers in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Melissa Gardner, Esq.
Douglas Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail:msobol@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
dcuthbertson@lchb.com
jliburd@lchb.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez Jones, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
ramirezjones@kiesel.law
- and -
Jason Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
CAMBER ENEGRY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morningstar reports that Camber Energy, Inc. (OTCQB:CEIN) ("Camber"
or the "Company") announced the dismissal of the previously
disclosed Class Action Complaint (i.e. C.A. No.4:24-cv-00489) filed
against the Company and its President & CEO titled Lawrence Rowe,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
James A. Doris and Camber Energy, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to
which the Plaintiff(s) sought to recover damages said to have been
suffered by them as a result of the defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger between Company and
Viking Energy Group, Inc.
On March 31, 2025, the Court granted the Company and Mr. Doris'
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the deadline for the
Plaintiff(s) to appeal the Court's decision expired on or about
April 30, 2025.
About Camber Energy, Inc.
Camber Energy, Inc. is a leader in power solutions and innovative
technologies. Through subsidiaries, Camber provides custom energy &
power solutions to commercial and industrial clients in North
America and has a majority interest in: (i) an entity with
intellectual property rights to a patented, proprietary Medical &
Bio-Hazard Waste Treatment system using Ozone Technology; and (ii)
entities with the intellectual property rights to patented and
patent pending, proprietary Electric Transmission and Distribution
Broken Conductor Protection Systems. Camber also holds, through a
subsidiary, an exclusive license in Canada to a patented clean
energy & carbon-capture system.
For more information, please visit the company's website at
www.camber.energy.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain forward-looking information within
the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. Any statements that are not historical facts contained in
this press release are "forward-looking statements", which
statements may be identified by words such as "expects," "plans,"
"projects," "will," "may," "anticipates," "believes," "should,"
"intends," "estimates," and other words of similar meaning. Such
forward-looking statements are based on current expectations,
involve known and unknown risks, a reliance on third parties for
information, transactions that may be cancelled, and other factors
that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or
developments in our industry, to differ materially from the
anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or
implied by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from anticipated results
include risks and uncertainties related to the fluctuation of
global economic conditions or economic conditions with respect to
the oil and gas industry, the COVID-19 pandemic, the performance of
management, actions of government regulators, vendors, and
suppliers, our cash flows and ability to obtain financing,
competition, general economic conditions and other factors that are
detailed in Camber's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. We intend that all forward-looking statements be
subject to the Safe Harbor Provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Camber cautions that the foregoing list of important factors is not
complete, any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date
on which such statement is made, and Camber does not undertake to
update any forward-looking statements that it may make, whether as
a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as
required by applicable law. All subsequent written and oral
forward-looking statements attributable to Camber or any person
acting its behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the
cautionary statements referenced above.
Contact Information
Telephone: (281) 404-4387 [GN]
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mary Alice Clark, Christopher Coulter, Aaron
Perez and Kevin Nelson, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Capital Vision Services, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-10236 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 2, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00769-KMN to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Capital Vision Services, LLC, doing business as MyEyeDr. --
https://www.capitalvisionservices.com/ -- provides optometric and
retail optical services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R Miltenberger, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 416-5060
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, PC.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617)607-3261
Fax: (617)-488-2261
Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
Web: www.fairworklaw.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar Jones, Esq.
Alan L Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Sam J. Smith, Esq.
Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
BURR & SMITH LLP
9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Phone: (813) 253-2010
Email: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Barry J. Miller, Esq.
Abigail Skinner, Esq.
Emily J. Miller, Esq.
Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
Molly Clayton Mooney, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 946-4800
Email: bmiller@seyfarth.com
askinner@seyfarth.com
emmiller@seyfarth.com
hmassey@seyfarth.com
mmooney@seyfarth.com
CENTURA CORP: Colorado Supreme Court Rules on Discovery Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Garcia v. Centura Health Corp., No. 24SA257, the
Supreme Court of the State of Colorado ruled that the district
court abused its discretion in Garcia v. Centura Health Corp., in
ordering certain discovery requested by the defendant and held that
Garcia is not required to respond to substantial discovery requests
propounded by Centura.
Jina Garcia, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action against Centura, seeking
to challenge Centura's lien practices under the Colorado hospital
lien statute. Garcia claims that Centura improperly filed liens for
medical services rendered to individuals involved in automobile
accidents, allegedly without providing adequate notice or complying
with the statutory requirements. Garcia contends that these liens
were invalid because they were filed before insurance payments were
processed and without proper verification of the accident-related
nature of the medical expenses.
Centura sought substantial discovery from Garcia, including, among
other things, medical records, other documents relating to her
claimed damages, attorney-client communications, settlement
agreements relating to the underlying accident, documents relating
to fault in the underlying accident, and financial records
establishing the damages caused by the hospital lien asserted
against her. Garcia objected to many of these requests on the
grounds of relevance and the scope of permissible discovery in a
case involving only statutory compliance, rather than the
underlying accident claims. Additionally, Garcia moved for a
protective order against Centura's discovery requests.
By order dated January 17, 2024, the district court required Garcia
to provide much of the discovery that Centura had requested. Garcia
then sought relief in the State Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21.
After receiving substantial briefing from the parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings, directing the lower court to reconsider the discovery
matters before it, and determine and make specific findings
regarding whether the discovery sought by Defendant is relevant to
the claims and defenses in this case, "keeping in mind that this
lawsuit involves claims of wrongful liens for which statutory
damages are established by law."
On remand, the district court convened a hearing and, after
considering the parties' arguments, issued an order requiring
Garcia to respond to certain of Centura's discovery requests.
Garcia again sought relief pursuant to C.A.R. 21, asserting that
the district court abused its discretion by ordering her to reveal
certain attorney-client privileged communications and to produce
attorney work-product and other documents. In her view, none of
these requests are relevant to the claims or defenses of any party,
and none are proportional to the needs of the case.
Centura, which is expected to make a request to decertify class,
argues that the discovery at issue is relevant to its anticipated
challenges to the typicality of Garcia's claims and the
predominance of common issues of law and fact fare no better.
According to the Supreme Court, on the facts of this case, the
discovery that Centura seeks is not relevant to superiority,
typicality, or predominance, as those terms are used in the class
action context.
Justice Gabriel delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Chief
Justice Márquez, Justice Boatright, Justice Hood, Justice Hart,
Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter joined.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
-- Robert E. Caldwell, Jr., Esq., at Wilhite, Rose, & Roberts,
P.C.
-- Kevin S. Hannon, Esq., at Singleton Schreiber, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant:
-- Traci L. Van Pelt, Esq., and Jonathan J. Corrigan, Esq., at
McConnell Van Pelt, LLC
-- Galen D. Bellamy, Esq., at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP
Attorneys for Respondent District Court, City and County of
Denver:
-- Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General
-- Kyle M. Holter, Assistant Attorney General
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/24SA257.pdf
CIVITAS RESOURCES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Civitas Resources, Inc. ("Civitas" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CIVI) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 25-cv-03791, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Civitas securities between February 27, 2024 and
February 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Civitas
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 1, 2025 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Civitas is an independent exploration and production company
focused on the acquisition, development and production of crude oil
and liquids-rich natural gas from its assets in the
Denver-Julesburg ("DJ") Basin in Colorado and the Permian Basin in
Texas and New Mexico. As of December 31, 2024, the Company owned a
working interest in a net total of 530,200 acres.
Civitas recognizes revenue from the sale of produced crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids. Accordingly, maintaining high
volumes of oil production is critical to the Company's ability to
achieve revenue growth.
Throughout 2024, Civitas maintained steady oil production and
accelerated the number of the Company's turned-in-lines ("TILs") --
i.e., newly drilled oil wells that have been designated as
operational and added to the total number of wells in which Civitas
owns a working interest-between the DJ and Permian Basins. However,
unbeknownst to investors, oil production in the DJ Basin peaked in
the fourth quarter of 2024 and, during the same period, Civitas
began reducing the pace in which it turned in new lines.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Civitas was highly likely to significantly
reduce its oil production in 2025 as a result of, inter alia,
declines following the production peak at the DJ Basin in the
fourth quarter of 2024 and a low TIL count at the end of 2024; (ii)
increasing its oil production would require the Company to acquire
additional acreage and development locations, thereby incurring
significant debt and causing the Company to sell corporate assets
to offset its acquisition costs; (iii) the Company's financial
condition would require it to implement disruptive cost-reduction
measures including a significant workforce reduction; (iv)
accordingly, Civitas's business and/or financial prospects, as well
as its operational capabilities, were overstated; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On February 24, 2025, Civitas announced its financial results for
the fourth quarter and full year 2024. Among other items, the
Company reported revenue of $1.29 billion, missing consensus
estimates by $3.44 million, and non-GAAP earnings per share of
$1.78 for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $0.21 per
share. In addition, Civitas reported net income of $151.1 million,
or $1.57 per share, compared with $302.9 million, or $3.23 per
share, in the year-ago quarter, and interest expense-the cost
incurred by an entity for borrowed funds-of $456.3 million for the
year.
That same day, Civitas issued a press release detailing the
Company's 2025 outlook, which Civitas claimed was "designed to
maximize free cash flow." The press release listed several 2025
outlook highlights, including "[d]elivering oil production between
150 and 155 thousand barrels per day ('MBbl/d') on average," -- a
year-over-year decline of approximately 4%-"[e]xpanding [its]
Permian Basin position with a $300 million bolt-on transaction that
adds 19,000 net acres and approximately 130 future development
locations in the Midland Basin," and "[e]xecuting on [a] new
divestment target of $300 million" meant to offset the foregoing
transaction. Further, the press release stated, in relevant part,
that "[f]irst quarter [2025] oil volumes are expected to be the low
point for the year, averaging 140 to 145 MBbl/d, mostly as a result
of few TILs in late 2024 and early 2025." The Company explained
that "[a]s compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, lower volumes
are primarily driven by the DJ Basin, due to natural declines
following peak production in the fourth quarter, a low TIL count
exiting 2024 and in the first quarter of 2025," as well as severe
winter weather and unplanned third-party processing downtime in the
first quarter. In addition, Civitas announced a 10% reduction in
its workforce across all levels, purportedly to "solidify the
Company's low-cost structure."
Finally, in a filing on Form 8-K with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, Civitas also announced the termination of
its Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Hodge Walker, who had occupied
the role for only 22 months, and Chief Transformation Officer
Jerome Kelly, effective immediately.
Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company's
announcements, expressing particular concern about Civitas's
reduced 2025 oil production guidance. For example, on February 24,
2025, the investment bank KeyBanc Capital Markets ("KeyBanc")
downgraded Civitas to Sector Perform from Outperform, stating that
it was "confused and disappointed" by the results and the "tepid"
2025 outlook, and finding it prudent to "wait for more clarity on
operations [and] the balance sheet[.]" Further, KeyBanc noted that
it was "anticipating news of inorganic debt reduction, likely in
the form of a meaningful sale of DJ Basin assets, [but] news of
another round of $300M of asset sales does not move the needle for
a company with over $5B of debt (pro forma for 1Q25 transactions)."
KeyBanc also stated that it was concerned by the Company's interest
expense guidance and that the decision to buy Midland Basin acreage
suggests Civitas "faces inventory depth concerns in the Permian
Basin that are forcing its hand to backfill inventory amid a
scarcity of available assets." Finally, in addition to balance
sheet concerns, KeyBanc took issue with management's lack of
clarity regarding the "fate of the DJ Basin," and stated that it
had "less confidence and more questions about operations, given the
updates [. . .] If drilling economics are as good as management
claims, why let oil decline 5% (ex-acquisition) in a $70/[barrel of
crude oil ('bbl') West Texas Intermediate ('WTI')] world? Why did
management choose to have zero 4Q24 TILs, creating this significant
production decline in 1Q25? How do these factors tie into the
abrupt departure of a COO who had been in the role less than two
years?"
On this news, Civitas's stock price fell $8.95 per share, or
18.15%, to close at $40.35 per share on February 25, 2025.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
CLEAN SKIN: Faces Moore Suit Over Disposable Towel Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
AFARI MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLEAN SKIN LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03945-NC (N.D. Cal.,
May 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's "compostable" representation,
which appears prominently on the front of the packaging of its
products.
According to the complaint, the Challenged Representation has
misled reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, into believing
the Products are, in fact, compostable. However, contrary to the
labeling, the Products, after ordinary use, including when used as
specifically directed by Defendant, are not compostable.
Unfortunately, as with many popular marketing trends, unscrupulous
actors can enter the market, exploit the situation, and spoil the
whole deal. That is precisely the case with Defendant's "Clean Skin
Club" and its expensive line of disposable towel products. The
company prominently advertises its products as "compostable" on the
packaging, front and center. But that promise is untrue. Once the
Products are used, including as Defendant itself expressly directs
-- with oils, balms, liquid makeup removers or cleansers -- they
can no longer be composted.
The Defendant's market fraud therefore not only deceives consumers
into purchasing products that fail to deliver advertised benefits,
it also causes consumers to unknowingly exacerbate the very
environmental problem they are paying more to solve, negating their
efforts to protect the planet and instead creating a ripple effect
of environmental harm, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased Clean Skin Club Clean Towels XL, 50 Count
from Amazon, to be shipped to the Plaintiff's residence in San
Jose, California, on Feb. 7, 2025, and paid approximately $17.95
plus tax, during the Class Period.
Clean Skin is headquartered and/or maintains a principal place of
business in the State of Florida. The Defendant was doing business
in the State of California at all relevant times, including the
Class Period. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Bryan P. Thompson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Laughlin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleo Communications,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Colton Laughlin, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cleo
Communications, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-50203
(N.D. Ill., April 21, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Cleo Communications LLC, simply referred to as Cleo --
https://www.cleo.com/ -- is a privately held software company
founded in 1976.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Brown Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Payroll
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Patricia Brown, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Complete Payroll
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-11212-LTS (D. Mass., May 2,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Complete Payroll -- https://www.completepayrollsolutions.com/ --
offers payroll services, HR software, time & attendance management
& tax services for small & mid-size employers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlin J. Phillips, Esq.
PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP
13 Ventura Drive
North Dartmouth, MA 02747
Phone: (508) 998-0800
Fax: (508) 998-0919
Email: cphillips@phillipsgarcia.com
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Nowak Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK NOWAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMPLETE PAYROLL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-30088
(D. Mass., May 6, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information including Social Security
numbers.
On March 10, 2024, the Defendant identified suspicious activity
systems. The Defendant discovered that certain files containing
personal information were accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized individual, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff
and Class Members (the Data Breach). The Defendant provides HR,
payroll and employee benefits to its clients' employees.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees
who, in order to obtain employment from Defendant's clients, were
and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive,
non-public Private Information.
The Defendant is an employee payroll and benefits provider who
services clients across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (737) 313-8560
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
COMPLETE PAYROLL: Marcial Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Payroll
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Marcial, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Complete Payroll
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-30083 (D. Mass., May 2, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Complete Payroll -- https://www.completepayrollsolutions.com/ --
offers payroll services, HR software, time & attendance management
& tax services for small & mid-size employers.[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
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Illegally Sells iPhones in Wash., Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Costco Wholesale Corporation illegally sells
iPhones in Washington without providing certain repair and warranty
disclosures about the products.
The 15-page lawsuit accuses Costco of violating Washington's
Telephone Buyers' Protection Act, which requires telephone
equipment sellers to clearly disclose certain information about
their product prior to the point of sale, including the party
responsible for repairs, standard repair charges and the terms of
any written warranties.
According to the case, Costco fails to properly disclose this
information to online and in-store iPhone buyers.
"Each of the iPhones sold by Costco are substantially similar in
that the packaging does not disclose information that is required
under the TBPA," the suit charges. "Costco also does not clearly
disclose the above information required by the TBPA by posting
notice in its stores or on the Product page on its website."
Enacted in 1984, the TBPA aims to ensure that consumers shopping
for telephone equipment receive adequate information about the
products' capabilities and reliability, the complaint shares.
Per the filing, Costco's alleged failure to include presale
disclosures about the iPhones it sells is misleading to consumers,
who may be surprised with high repair charges or unexpected
warranty terms.
The Costco lawsuit was brought by a Washington resident who says he
bought an iPhone 14 Pro Max from the warehouse retailer in 2023.
The plaintiff claims he would have paid less for the phone—or not
bought it at all—had Costco clearly disclosed its standard repair
charges and warranty information in compliance with the TBPA.
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who purchased an
iPhone from Costco for personal use in Washington during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
CRYE-LEIKE INC: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus
---------------------------------------------------
CRYE-LEIKE INC., filed on April 17, 2025, a petition for writ of
mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
under Case No. 25-1759, requesting to vacate the December 16, 2024
and January 23, 2025 orders of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri in the case captioned In Re
Crye-Leike, Inc., Case No. 4:23-CV-00788-SRB, and instruct the
district court to dismiss Crye-Leike, Inc. or transfer the claim
against it to the Western District of Tennessee. Crye-Leike also
seeks a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the
Court's consideration of its petition. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner CRYE-LEIKE INC. is represented by:
Marcus Angelo Manos, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1230 Main Street, Suite 700
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 771-8900
Facsimile: (803) 253-8277
Email: MManos@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Carl S. Burkhalter, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1901 Sixth Avenue N, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1081
Email: cburkhalter@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Alexandra Harrington Austin, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
205 King Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 579-7827
Email: aaustin@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Joseph C. Blanton, Jr., Esq.
Thomas W. Collins, III, Esq.
Diedre A. Peters, Esq.
Mark D. Blanton, Esq.
Shaun D. Hanschen, Esq.
BLANTON, NICKELL, COLLINS, DOUGLAS, HANSCHEN & PETERS, LLC
219 South Kingshighway
P.O. Box 805
Sikeston, MO 63801
Telephone: (573) 471-1000
Facsimile: (573) 471-1012
Email: jblanton@blantonlaw.com
tcollins@blantonlaw.com
dpeters@blantonlaw.com
mblanton@blantonlaw.com
shanschen@blantonlaw.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Faces J.D. Class Suit Over Alleged Assault
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.D., a minor, by and through his next friend, JANE DOE, v. THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a municipal corporation, ANTHONY LLOYD, In
his individual capacity, and BERNELL DAVIS, in his individual
capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-01349 (D.D.C., May 2, 2025) is as a
class action suit against the Defendants for alleged brutal
assault.
The Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services is responsible for
caring for court-involved young people and giving them the
"opportunity to become more productive citizens" in the "most
homelike environment" possible. And yet, on May 5, 2022, the
Defendant Anthony Lloyd -- a manager responsible for overseeing the
treatment of children at DYRS -- punched J.D. -- a fourteen
year-old boy in DYRS custody -- in the mouth with full force,
fracturing J.D.'s jaw in two places. All the while, Defendant
Bernell Davis -- a DYRS supervisor -- stood watching. In the
minutes before Defendant Lloyd's brutal assault, J.D. had been
sitting on the bed in his room. J.D. was struggling with symptoms
of depression and, before Defendant Lloyd punched him, repeatedly
asked Defendant Lloyd and Defendant Davis to allow him to speak
with a mental health professional, asserts the suit.
Defendants Lloyd and Davis refused to help and instead of helping,
Defendant Davis stood idly by as Defendant Lloyd punched and
strangled J.D. J.D. survived the brutal attack. But he was
hospitalized for four days, had to undergo reconstructive surgery,
and could not chew or engage in physical activity for six weeks.
He missed school and the special education instruction to which he
is entitled as a student with disabilities. And he has experienced
nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and feels constantly on-edge.
Almost three years later, he still has pain in his jaw, and his jaw
does not function properly. J.D.’s jaw will never fully recover,
and DYRS staff’s actions have caused him lasting trauma.
Plaintiff J.D. is a 17-year-old boy who is currently held at New
Beginnings, a juvenile detention facility operated by DYRS. In May
of 2022, he was held at Youth Services Center, a juvenile detention
facility also operated by DYRS. He brings this action by and
through his mother, Jane Doe, who is qualified to serve as his next
friend and who will fully and actively advocate for his interests.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is responsible for the supervision and
operation of DYRS, which operates a number of juvenile detention
facilities, including YSC and New Beginnings. The District is also
responsible for and has a duty to establish policies and procedures
for DYRS, including for the training, supervision, and discipline
of DYRS staff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ellie M. Driscoll, Esq.
Marja K. Plater, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
E-mail: ellie_driscoll@washlaw.org
marja_plater@washlaw.org
DRIZLY LLC: Agrees to Settle Withheld Tips Class Suit for $4-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Drizly, a now-defunct alcohol
delivery platform owned by Uber, has agreed to pay $4 million in
restitution to delivery workers after an investigation by New York
Attorney General Letitia James found the company failed to ensure
its delivery workers received their rightfully earned tips.
The Drizly class action settlement benefits at least 8,385 delivery
workers employed by 2,453 liquor stores that used the Drizly
platform in New York.
Drizly was an alcohol delivery platform that began operations in
New York in 2013. Uber acquired Drizly in 2021 and shut it down in
March 2024 after Uber decided to consolidate its food and alcohol
delivery services into one platform, Uber Eats.
According to Attorney General James, Drizly actively encouraged
customers to leave tips for delivery workers, even including an
automatic 10% tip at checkout.
However, James claimed, the company led customers to believe that
the entirety of those tips would go directly to the delivery
workers who earned them, when in fact all tips instead went to
store owners for distribution.
Liquor stores using Drizly had the option to either outsource
deliveries or employ their own delivery workers. For delivery
workers employed by the stores, including more than 8,300 workers
at 2,453 stores throughout New York state, Drizly sent all of the
tips to the store owners, who then decided how tips would be
distributed.
As a result of James' action, Drizly will pay $4 million in
restitution to affected delivery workers.
In addition to the $4 million in restitution, Drizly will pay an
additional $200,000 for a settlement administrator, who will track
and disburse the restitution funds to delivery workers.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 15, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Delivery workers employed by stores that used the Drizly platform.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/15/2025
Case Name
Office of the New York State Attorney General's Settlement with
Drizly LLC, Case No. 24-080, in the New York State Office of the
Attorney General Labor Bureau
Final Hearing
N/A
Settlement Website
NYDrizlySettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Drizly Restitution Settlement
c/o Simpluris
P.O. Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799info@NYDrizlySettlement.com
(866) 675-2754
Class Counsel
Jessica Agarwal
NEW YORK STATE OAG LABOR BUREAU
Defense Counsel
Ashley L. Taylor, Jr.
Stephen C. Piepgrass
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP [GN]
ETERNITY PET: Disposes Animal Remains in Landfills, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Troy, writing for TRIB Live, reports two of the thousands of
pet owners allegedly defrauded by a local funeral director have
filed a class action lawsuit in Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas.
They're seeking financial damages from Patrick Vereb, who ran
funeral homes in Pittsburgh and Harrison until being hit with
multiple felony charges earlier this week, as well as Eternity Pet
Memorial, Vereb Funeral Home and John D. O'Connor & Son Funeral
Home.
The state Attorney General's Office has accused Vereb of stealing
almost $660,000 from customers who paid for pet cremations,
burials, return of ashes and other services between 2021 and 2024.
He profited by disposing of the animal remains in landfills and
giving customers ashes that weren't from their pets, according to
authorities.
The accusations are backed by more than 100 photos of
unrefrigerated pets, tossed tags and handwritten notes from Vereb
that were assembled by Tiffany Mantzouridis, a former intern at
Vereb Funeral Home. She claims official crematory records showed no
pets were cremated that weighed 30 pounds and under.
At least 6,500 victims have been identified, with more likely
rolling in every day through a webpage created by the Attorney
General's Office where people can determine whether they may have
been victimized by Vereb. More than 20 veterinary services that
worked with Vereb are listed in a drop-down box.
"We are not naive," said Robert Peirce, an attorney for the alleged
victims. "We are going to attempt to make all these victims whole.
But the reality is we're dealing with a criminal element who has
taken advantage of hundreds and thousands of people in Western
Pennsylvania."
Law firms Robert Peirce & Associates and Lynch Carpenter held a
news conference to announce the filing.
Next to them sat plaintiffs Aimee Cain of Monongahela and Chris
Brownfield of McKeesport. The two seldom spoke, letting photos and
mementos of their deceased pets do most of the talking.
Cain paid to have two dogs cremated by Vereb. Brownfield did the
same for 11 of her animals, who she said were like children. The
supposed remains of Brownfield's pets were placed in ziplock bags
and tucked inside photo urns.
"He got all of them," Brownfield said, fighting back tears.
As of about 3:30 p.m. Friday, May 2, Vereb had not been served the
lawsuit.
Louis Emmi, the attorney representing Vereb in the criminal case,
did not immediately return a request for comment.
Peirce said one aim of the lawsuit is to find out what happened to
the pet remains that entered Vereb's care.
"We're not going to know for 100% of the people," he said. "But if
we find it for some, it's better than nothing."
A lawsuit is just one way pet owners have expressed their shock and
heartache.
A Facebook group call "The Victims of Vereb Funeral Home and
Eternity Pet Memorial" was created and has attracted more than
2,300 members. The group is organizing ways to heal and fight back,
with talk of candlelight vigils and petitions pushing for tighter
funerary laws.
A few members had mulled protesting May 9, when Vereb was to appear
before a district judge for his preliminary hearing, but he waived
the charges to court.
His next scheduled court appearance is now his formal arraignment,
set for June 18 at the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh.
The Attorney General's Office is urging anyone who protests to do
so peacefully.
"Acts that constitute harassment, threats or violence will be
investigated by law enforcement," the office said in a statement.
"To be upset or angered by the alleged conduct in this case is
justified -- any act of violence is not." [GN]
GOOD NEIGHBORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Good Neighbors
Credit Union data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
Good Neighbors Federal Credit Union, which has locations in Buffalo
and Depew, New York, has announced a data breach involving
unauthorized access to its network, initially occurring on December
10, 2024. Upon discovering the breach, Good Neighbors Credit Union
launched an investigation with the help of external cybersecurity
experts.
By April 4, 2025, the investigation confirmed that a range of
personal information, including Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, financial information, bank account numbers,
credit/debit card numbers, medical information and health insurance
details, might have been accessed by an unauthorized party.
The Good Neighbors Federal Credit Union data breach reportedly
impacted 18,621 individuals, and the credit union began sending
notice on May 1, 2025 to those for whom it has contact
information.
What You Can Do
If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want
to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit
to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing
with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Good Neighbors Credit Union to
ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was
entrusted with.
Take Action
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
HUUUGE INC: Agrees to Settle Illegal Gambling Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Huuuge Inc. agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims its Huuuge Casino and
Billionaire Casino apps violate gambling laws by charging players
to play.
The Huuuge Casino settlement benefits consumers who made purchases
or payments through the Huuuge Casino or Billionaire Casino mobile
games before Jan. 23, 2025.
According to a class action lawsuit, Huuuge Casino and Billionaire
Casino apps violate California and Illinois gambling laws by
charging players for in-game currency, which they then use to
gamble in the games.
While players can earn in-game currency for free, the plaintiffs
say that the apps force players to pay for in-game currency if they
want to continue playing.
Huuuge Inc. is a gaming company that operates the Huuuge Casino and
Billionaire Casino apps.
Huuuge has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the
allegations with a class action settlement.
Under the terms of the Billionaire Casino settlement, class members
can receive virtual currency for use in the Huuuge Casino and
Billionaire Casino apps. Each class member will receive at least
375 virtual diamonds, which can be used to purchase in-game items.
Class members may receive additional virtual diamonds depending on
the circumstances of their purchases. Class members with multiple
accounts may be limited to receiving only 375 virtual diamonds for
all of their accounts.
In addition to providing Huuuge Casino settlement benefits to class
members, Huuuge agreed to change the mechanics of its apps to
provide continuous free play. Specifically, Huuuge agreed to make
additional changes to its apps, including removing countdown timers
for sales and offering virtual items for sale at their respective
base prices.
The apps will also provide notices to players when their next free
virtual chips bonus becomes available. Huuuge further agreed to
move links to resources relating to video game behavior disorders
and its self-exclusion policy to a more prominent location in the
apps.
Meanwhile, consumers who played at other online casinos may also
qualify for additional class action investigations. If you lost
money on an online casino that was advertised as free or missed out
on a promised Caesars or BetMGM bonus in select states, you may be
eligible for compensation through a class action investigation.
The deadline for exclusion and objection for the Billionaire Casino
settlement has not been determined.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
5, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who made purchases or payments through the Huuuge Casino
and/or Billionaire Casino mobile games in the United States or its
territories before Jan. 23, 2025.
Potential Award
375 virtual diamonds.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form Deadline
N/A
Case Name
Ballew, et al. v. Huuuge Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04324-GW-AGR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Final Hearing
08/05/2025
Settlement Website
HuuugeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Huuuge Casino Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@huuugesettlement.com
(877) 355-4933
Class Counsel
Andrew Ryan
THE RYAN LAW GROUP
Defense Counsel
Kevin E. Gaut
MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP [GN]
HYWIN HOLDINGS: N.Y. Sup. OKs $1MM Proposed Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Hywin Holdings Ltd. American Depositary
Shares (NASDAQ: HYW):
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PERRIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,
vs.
HYWIN HOLDINGS LTD., NETWORK 1 FINANCIAL SECURITIES INC., ALEXANDER
CAPITAL L.P., VALUABLE CAPITAL LIMITED, HAN HONGWEI, WANG DIAN, ZHU
SHUMING, JOEL A. GALLO, CHEN JIE, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., and COLLEEN
A. DE VRIES, Defendants,
Index No. 152554/2024
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Honorable Andrew Borrok
Part 53
TO: All persons and entities that purchased the American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") of Hywin Holdings, Ltd. n/k/a Santech Holdings Ltd.
("Hywin" or the "Company"; former NASDAQ ticker: "HYW"; current
NASDAQ ticker: "STEC") pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with Hywin's March 2021 IPO between
March 25, 2021 and March 19, 2024, inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period") (the "Settlement Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Article 9 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules and an Order of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division (the
"Court"), that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is
pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiff and proposed class
representative in this Action, Daniel Perrier, reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with Defendant for $1,000,000 in cash on
behalf of the Settlement Class, that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.
A Fairness Hearing will be held on August 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
Eastern Time, before the Honorable Andrew Borrok, either in person
at the New York County Courthouse, Part 53, Courtroom 238, 60
Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, or by telephone or
videoconference (at the discretion of the Court). At the hearing,
the Court will determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the releases specified and described in the Stipulation, and in the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long
Notice") should be granted; (iii) for purposes of the proposed
Settlement only, the Action should be finally certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Plaintiff should be
certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. should be finally appointed as Plaintiff's
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iv) the proposed Plan of
Allocation will provide compensation to eligible Settlement Class
Members in the Action and should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (v) Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved, and
Plaintiff should be granted an award for his service to the
Settlement Class.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Long Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator, Strategic
Claims Services at Hywin Holdings Securities Litigation c/o
Strategic Claims Services. Copies of the Long Notice and Proof of
Claim can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator www.strategicclaims.net/Hywin.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than July 31,
2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Proof of
Claim. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than July 15, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long Notice. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application
must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to
Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are
received no later than July 15, 2025, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Long Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, or Defendants'
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Plaintiff's Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice and Proof of
Claim, should be made to the Plaintiff's Counsel below:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 808-1060
philkim@rosenlegal.com
Requests for the Long Notice and Proof of Claim should be made to:
Hywin Holdings Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
info@strategicclaims.net
(866) 274-4004
By Order of the Court [GN]
IMAGINE360 LLC: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $475,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Imagine360 LLC agreed to a $475,000
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to
prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive employee
health plan data.
The Imagine360 data breach settlement benefits individuals who
received a data breach notice from Imagine360 informing them their
information may have been compromised in a data breach on Jan. 30,
2023.
According to the Imagine360 data breach class action lawsuit,
Imagine360 failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to
protect sensitive employee health plan data. As a result, hackers
allegedly gained access to sensitive information, such as Social
Security numbers, medical information and health insurance data.
Imagine360 is a health benefits company that offers services,
including health plan administration and telemedicine.
Imagine360 has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $475,000
settlement to resolve the data breach class action allegations.
Under the terms of the Imagine360 data breach settlement, class
members can receive either a flat-rate payment or a larger payment
for documented losses.
Flat-rate payments are estimated to be $75 per claimant. Claimants
who experienced losses as a result of the Imagine360 data breach
can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursements.
Losses covered by the settlement include bank fees, credit
expenses, communication charges, travel expenses and more. Class
members must provide documentation of these losses to receive
reimbursement.
All class members can receive three years of free credit
monitoring, regardless of whether they experienced losses as a
result of the data breach.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 16, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Imagine360 data breach
settlement is scheduled for Aug. 15, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 31, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notice from Imagine360
informing them that their personal information may have been
compromised in a data breach that occurred Jan. 30, 2023.
Potential Award
An estimated $75 payout or $5,000 in documented losses and three
years of free credit monitoring.
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses related to the data breach, such as
telephone records, correspondence or receipts.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
07/31/2025
Case Name
Collins v. Imagine360 LLC, Case No. CACE-25-002370, in the Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida
Final Hearing
08/15/2025
Settlement Website
Imagine360DataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Imagine360 Data Breach Litigation
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2440
Portland, OR 97208-2440
(888) 836-1042
Class Counsel
Jeff Ostrow
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
Nicholas Colella
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
Defense Counsel
Richard Haggerty
MULLEN & COUGHLIN [GN]
INSPIRE BRANDS: Court Dismisses Fraud Suit on Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lathrop GPM reports that a federal court in California recently
dismissed a putative class action by two Dunkin' customers alleging
customers were illegally charged a "dine-in fee, or other hidden
fee." Taferner v. Inspire Brands, Inc., 2025 WL 942498 (C.D. Cal.
Mar. 25, 2025).
The customers asserted violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, breach of
express warranty, breach of contract, fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment. The customers sued four separate entities --
Inspire Brands, Inc.; Vale Merger Sub, Inc.; Dunkin' Brands Group,
Inc.; and Dunkin' Donuts Franchising LLC -- arguing that each was
the alter ego of the parent company, Inspire Brands, and were
together liable for charging the illegal fees. Defendants
collectively moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and
failure to state a claim.
The court granted the motion. The court first found that the
customers lacked standing to bring their claims against Inspire,
Dunkin' Brands, and Vale, who were too attenuated from causing the
alleged hidden fees. The court held that these defendants were
impermissibly lumped together and failed to cause any injury to the
plaintiffs. Nor did the customers plead any facts to support a
plausible alter ego claim. That left Dunkin' Donuts Franchising as
the only entity that contracted directly with Dunkin franchisees in
a way that could have caused the customers' injury. But as to
Dunkin' Donuts Franchising, the court held that it lacked personal
jurisdiction over that Delaware company with its principal place of
business in Massachusetts. The court found that the customers
failed to establish that Dunkin Donuts Franchising's economic ties
with franchisees in the state were sufficient to establish general
personal jurisdiction. The customers also failed to demonstrate
that Dunkin' Donuts Franchising's contacts with California caused
the alleged harm; the applicable Franchise Disclosure Document gave
franchisees control over pricing, including any hidden dine-in fee.
Thus, the court dismissed all claims against all defendants. [GN]
JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: Jacquez Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLY JACQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01113-K
(N.D. Tex., May 5, 2025) arises out of the recent data breach
involving the Defendant.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names and Social Security numbers.
Accordingly, current and former JKI employees or franchisees are
required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII,
without which the Defendant could not perform its regular business
activities, in order to obtain employment/franchisee or certain
employment/franchisee benefits at Defendant.
The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and
even after the employee-employer/franchisee-franchiser relationship
has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit
from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion,
asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees or
franchisees of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a company that specializes in Commercial Cleaning
Franchises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Casondra Turner, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: cturner@milberg.com
LABORATORY SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, McMillan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TORI McMILLAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LABORATORY SERVICES COOPERATIVE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00833
(W.D. Wash., May 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients'
patients.
LSC collected and maintained certain personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members, who are current and former patients at
Defendant's clients.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, demographic data, Social Security
numbers, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, student ID
numbers and other forms of government identifiers e claim numbers,
financial billing details, bank account details (including bank
name, account number, and routing number), billing codes, payment
card details, balance details, and similar banking and financial
information, medical and health insurance information, such as
date(s) of service, diagnoses, treatments, medical record numbers,
lab results, patient/accession numbers, provider names, treatment
locations and related-care details, healthcare plan names, plan
types, insurance companies, and member/group ID numbers, all of
which is protected health information as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Defendant is a healthcare company that provides lab testing
services to its clients, including, but not limited to, Planned
Parenthood centers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal information -- which they entrusted to the Defendant on
the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed and
exfiltrated due to the Data Breach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Brook e. Garberding, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9106
Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
reddyp@emeryreddy.com
brook@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
bjack@justice4you.com
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LAIRD SUPERFOOD, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03763
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025) sues the Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.lairdsuperfood.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On August 29, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant’s website to
purchase a creamer, Turmeric Superfood Creamer. Despite Plaintiff's
efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, the
suit claims.
The Plaintiff was injured when she multiple times, most recently on
August 29, 2024, to access Defendant's Website from her home in an
effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers
that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods,
content, and services.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
LEDUC, AB: Settles Sexual Assault Class Suit for $9.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Ellingson, writing for CTV News, reports that the City of
Leduc is paying 155 women more than $9.5 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit seeking damages for workplace sexual assault
-- one of the highest payouts per woman for such a suit in Canadian
legal history, the Calgary law firm that represents them said
Monday, May 5.
The Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer law firm said in a media release
the total payout to the women who came forward is $9,527,500 to
settle the suit that was originally filed in February 2022 by
former Leduc firefighters Christa Steele and Mindy Smith, claiming
the abuse of female firefighters in the city of 35,000 was
systemic, common and tolerated.
The city's fire chief quit less than a month after Steele and Smith
filed the suit.
In July 2023, an Alberta court approved a settlement in the case.
Leduc is 25 kilometres south of the Edmonton city limits, adjacent
to the Edmonton International Airport.
Steele said that she is pleased that she and the group of women
involved in the class-action lawsuit were able to "set precedent
across Canada."
"We made history and we left a mark, we left a footprint that we
accomplished as a group," Steele told CTV News Edmonton.
"I'm happy that the city is acknowledging that there was an issue,
and I'm happy that they are willing to make some critical changes
that needed to be made.
"It's a long time coming."
In January 2024, Leduc Mayor Bob Young formally apologized to the
women for physical and sexual abuse they experienced on the job.
The public apology was part of a settlement approved in the summer
of 2023 between the city and employees who claimed physical and
sexual assault, harassment and bullying incidents dating back to
2002.
In early April, a Calgary judge allowed several female Leduc civic
employees to make public how many of them claimed physical and
sexual assault, harassment and bullying incidents, as well as how
many and how much the city has paid to settle the claims.
The City of Leduc had fought to keep the number of women involved
and the payout amount private. The city said in a statement posted
to its website that the legal and claims costs of the lawsuit are
being covered by insurance.
The claimants are eligible for payments between $10,000 and
$265,000. The settlement included confidentiality for any woman who
has worked for the City of Leduc who wanted to come forward. The
claims process for the suit is now closed.
Lawyer Robert Martz of Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer said one reason
why his law firm proceeded with class action was because they
"didn't know how many women were out there, and we hoped that we'd
be able to reach as many as possible."
"When Christa and Mindy brought this case, that's one of the things
they hope to do -- they wanted to push this forward so that other
women in other places that had suffered these same things would
have an opportunity to come forward and see compensation," Martz
told CTV News Edmonton.
"I'm hopeful that the legal system is more open to these kind of
claims going forward, that it'll encourage women to know they're
not alone, and that there is a path to some level of justice by
pursuing these cases." [GN]
LIMANI LICENSING: Faces Class Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LIMANI LICENSING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02484
(S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025) sues the Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.limani.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On January 20, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website,
www.limani.com, to review the menu and make a reservation at this
restaurant. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied
an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded browsing
experience, the suit claims.
Ms. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
LUX REAL: Faces Class Suit Over Retention of Security Deposits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suezanne Mehlenbacher, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Lux Real Properties LLC, Case No.
2025-CA-000339A (Fla. Cir., Citrus Cty., May 6, 2025) is a putative
class action lawsuit arising from the Defendant's wrongful
retention of security deposits and pre-paid rent from tenants who
were forced to vacate an uninhabitable residential property
following damage from hurricanes Helene and Milton in September and
October 2024.
The Defendant failed to repair or remediate the damage caused by
the hurricanes, rendering the property unlivable. Despite this,
Defendant never returned prepaid rent or security deposits to its
tenants, in violation of Florida's Residential Landlord and Tenant
Act. Tenants at these properties never received any email or
communication from Defendant about the return of their deposits or
last month rent despite losing everything to the storms, including
a place to live. To date, Defendant has given no refunds or even an
explanation as to why it has not refunded the money which all the
tenants paid to Defendant via its online portal, says the suit.
As part of its landlord duties, Defendant collected security
deposits and rent payments on its online RentCafe portal from
tenants. The Plaintiff had a lease agreement with Defendant from
July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. Exhibit A (the Lease).
The Plaintiff and the Class seek a return of their security
deposits and last month rent payments, and their attorneys fees and
costs under the FRLTA.
The Defendant is the owner of apartments in Florida. In particular
it owned several apartments in Crystal River that were apart of 753
NE 9th St, Crystal River, FL 34429.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC.
1000 Brickell Ave, Suite 715
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 843-1933
E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com
MDL 3035: Court Narrows Claims Against Symetra
----------------------------------------------
Judge S. Thomas Anderson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, granted in
part and denied in part Defendant Symetra Life Insurance
Company’s Motion to Dismiss in the matter captioned as IN RE:
African Methodist Episcopal Church Retirement Plan Litigation, MDL
No. 3035. Specifically, Symetra's Motion is granted as to the
claim under the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code and denied as to the
Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
The multidistrict litigation concerns the alleged mismanagement of
a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist
Episcopal Church for its clergy, officers, employees, and their
beneficiaries. The AMEC established the retirement Plan in 2005 to
consolidate three existing systems into one Ministerial Annuity
Plan of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Dr. Jerome Harris
served as both Trustee and Executive Director of the Plan from
approximately 2000 through June 2021. During this time, Dr. Harris,
in coordination with Robert Eaton, allegedly diverted substantial
Plan assets through various entities they created, including AMEC
Financial Services, Financial Freedom Funds, Financial Freedom
Group, and Trinity Financial Consultants.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, Dr. Harris invested over
$36 million in speculative venture capital entities referred to as
the "Motorskill Entities," which eventually became virtually
worthless. An additional $2.5 million was purportedly invested in
undeveloped Florida land valued at less than half the purchase
price.
Symetra, operating under the name Safeco Insurance until
approximately 2005, became involved with the Plan on or about
December 19, 2001. At Dr. Harris's recommendation, the AMEC General
Board resolved to transfer Plan annuity funds to Safeco. On
December 31, 2001, the Church invested $48.2 million of Plan assets
into an account with Safeco. After its rebranding, Symetra
continued as the primary financial institution handling the Plan's
assets.
Symetra also appointed Robert Eaton as the "broker of record" for
the Plan. Eaton received significant commissions from Symetra,
including monthly "tail commissions" of 0.5% of the Plan’s
assets. Over the next two decades, Symetra allegedly processed a
series of questionable transfers at Dr. Harris's direction and paid
administrative fees to him that cumulatively totaled several
million dollars.
Following Dr. Harris's death in 2024, the Estate of Dr. Harris was
named as a Defendant in this action.
The named Plaintiffs include bishops, ministers, elders, officers,
and other employees affiliated with the AMEC and its educational
institutions who either (1) lost funds that should have been
invested in the Plan, or (2) received diminished investment returns
due to the alleged mismanagement of the Plan. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class comprised of "All persons residing in the United
States who are participants in the African Methodist Episcopal
Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan, and all persons
residing in the United States who are beneficiaries entitled to
benefits as of January 1, 2021, under the Plan."
Symetra moved to dismiss all claims asserted against it in the
Second Amended Complaint. The Court considered the following four
claims:
-- Fraudulent Concealment,
-- Civil Conspiracy,
-- Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and
-- Violation of the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code.
The Court concluded, without elaboration, that the Second Amended
Complaint failed to state a plausible violation of the Tennessee
Uniform Trust Code.
Symetra argued that it owed no fiduciary duty to the Plan and
therefore had no obligation to disclose Dr. Harris's conduct. The
Court rejected this argument, reaffirming its prior finding that
Symetra exercised a degree of discretion over the disposition of
Plan assets sufficient to constitute fiduciary status under the
Plan's definition. As such, the Court held that Symetra had a duty
to disclose material facts pursuant to Tennessee law, which
recognizes a duty to disclose where a fiduciary relationship
exists.
Although the Court characterized the issue as a "close call," it
held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Symetra, acting
as a fiduciary, concealed material information regarding Dr.
Harris's misconduct in breach of its duty to the Plan. The Motion
to Dismiss was denied as to this claim.
Symetra moved to dismiss the civil conspiracy claim, asserting that
the Second Amended Complaint failed to allege the existence of an
agreement or a common design between it and Dr. Harris. Symetra
also contended that the allegations were internally inconsistent,
pointing to Plaintiffs' dual theories that Symetra either conspired
to misappropriate Plan assets or merely followed Dr. Harris's
instructions negligently.
The Court rejected these arguments. Under Tennessee law, a civil
conspiracy may be inferred from a tacit understanding; formal
agreement is not required. The Second Amended Complaint alleged
that Symetra facilitated transfers of Plan funds, paid kickbacks to
Dr. Harris, and supported his re-election campaign, all in
furtherance of a scheme to misappropriate Plan assets. The Court
found these allegations sufficient to allege the existence of a
conspiracy.
Moreover, the Court found no inconsistency in Plaintiffs'
alternative pleading theories, which are permissible under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(3). The Motion to Dismiss was denied
as to this claim.
Symetra argued that it lacked actual knowledge of any breach by Dr.
Harris and that its actions did not amount to substantial
assistance. The Court disagreed. Plaintiffs alleged that Symetra
knowingly handled a $10 million withdrawal of Plan funds to a
company owned by Eaton and continued to pay inflated administrative
fees to Dr. Harris despite internal concerns. These allegations
were found sufficient at the pleading stage to meet both the
knowledge and substantial assistance elements required for aiding
and abetting liability under Tennessee law. Accordingly, the Motion
to Dismiss was denied as to this claim.
MDL 3146: Panel Denies Transfer of 2 Suits to D. of Colombia
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, denied the consolidation of Case Nos.
1:24-05605 and 1:23-06391, from U.S. District Courts for the
Eastern District of New York and Southern District of New York,
respectively, to the District for the District of Columbia for
inclusion in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Mary and
Devi Nampiaparampil Litigation," MDL No. 3146.
The panel has concluded that the overlapping facts and anticipated
pretrial proceedings in these cases are not sufficiently complex to
warrant centralization. There are just three total cases pending in
two adjacent districts, and plaintiffs' complaints describe what
is, at its core, an inherently local dispute involving New York
City elections. The actions present factual overlap regarding
defendants' alleged discriminatory application of campaign finance
laws and auditing procedures, retaliatory conduct and denial of
plaintiffs' access to legal representation.
Given the limited number of parties and courts, we are of the view
that informal cooperation and coordination are adequate
alternatives to centralization that should work to minimize any
duplication in pretrial proceedings, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 3, 2025 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3146-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-25.pdf
MDL 3147: Panel Denies Centralization of 11 Suits in Pointwise Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Pointwise Ventures,
LLC ('812) Patent Litigation," MDL No. 3147, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, denies the centralization of 10 actions from the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of Texas and one from the
Western District of Texas in the Northern District of California,
District of Delaware, Northern District of Illinois, District of
New Mexico, or any convenient jurisdiction.
The panel has concluded that centralization is not necessary, and
while there is some factual overlap among these actions because
plaintiff asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 against every
defendant, "these actions are being litigated in a manner that is
likely to lead to their resolution, whether through settlement or
other means, within a relatively short period of time."
To date, Pointwise Ventures has asserted its pointing device patent
in a total of 29 cases. Thirteen cases were settled and dismissed
in their infancy before Wayfair moved for centralization. Two
actions on the motion and one potentially related action were
dismissed. The parties in another action recently moved to stay
their case deadlines so they can finalize a settlement. If that
settlement finalizes, only ten actions and two potentially related
actions will remain. Eleven of those twelve cases are pending
before a single judge. None of the cases involving the '812 patent
have progressed through claim construction, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's April 4, 2025 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3147-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-25.pdf
MIAMI CLIPPERS 5: Panradl Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miami Clippers 5 Inc.
The case is styled as Deniz Panradl, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Miami Clippers 5 Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-22029-DSL (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Miami Clippers 5, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
MICHAEL DUNLEAVY: Vail Files Suit in D. Alaska
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Dunleavy, et
al. The case is styled as Rory Vail, Jim Adams, Christopher
Nickalaskey, Clarence Shirley, Stephanie Olrun, Nick Ephamka, Jr.,
Anthony Gilliam, Gavin Christiansen, Jeremy Whitlow, Naomi Holt, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Michael
Dunleavy, Governor of Alaska, in their official capacities;
Jennifer Winkelman, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Corrections; Travis Welch, Department of Corrections Director of
Health and Rehabilitation Services; in their official capacities,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01944 (D. Alaska, May 1, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison
Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights.
Michael James Dunleavy is an American educator and politician
serving as the 12th governor of Alaska since 2018.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
Natalie Cauley, Esq.
Ruth Botstein, Esq.
ACLU OF ALASKA
1057 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 258-0288
MISHAN & SONS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. E. MISHAN & SONS, INC., D/B/A GRANITESTONE, Case No.
1:25-cv-03760 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025) sues the Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
website, www.granitestone.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff multiple times, most
recently on August 29, 2024, to access Defendant's Website from
Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. 21. Specifically,
Plaintiff wanted to purchase a cookware set (Granitestone Armor Max
14-Piece set)
Ms. Fernandez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
NAPCO SECURITY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Napco
Security Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:NSSC) securities between
February 5, 2024 and February 3, 2025. Napco develops,
manufactures, and sells high-tech electronic security devices and
provides cellular communication services for intrusion and fire
alarm systems.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Napco Security Technologies, Inc. (NSSC) Misled Investors Regarding
the Company's Ability to Achieve Fiscal 2026 Growth Projections
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose the true state of Napco's ability to forecast
the demand for its products or the true state of Napco's
negotiating position with distributors. Specifically, Napco made
lofty long-term projections and claimed one-off setbacks to
hardware sales, when in truth, Napco's forecasting processes fell
short as sales continued to decline and, ultimately, derailed the
Company's long-term projections.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 3, 2025, Napco announced
disappointing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal
2025, revealing a significant reduction in hardware sales for the
quarter. On this news, the price of Napco's common stock declined
from a closing price of $36.70 per share on January 31, 2024, to
$26.93 per share on February 3, 2025, an approximate 26.62% decline
in the span of just a single day.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Napco Security Technologies, Inc. Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with
the court by June 24, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Waheed Directed to Amend Suit Against HRA and DSS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain, United States District Judge of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
in a case captioned as Sehra Waheed v. Molly Wasow Park et. al.,
dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the New York City Human
Resources Administration and the New York City Department of Social
Services, and her procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. The Court also granted Plaintiff 30 days' leave to replead
her claims in an amended complaint.
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the
court's federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants
violated her rights under state and federal law with respect to
administration of various public assistance benefits. Named as
Defendants are:
-- the City of New York,
-- the New York City Department of Social Services,
-- the New York City Human Resources Administration,
-- HRA Administrator Scott French, and
-- DSS Commissioner Molly Wasow Park
The Court construes the complaint as asserting claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 that Defendants violated Plaintiff's right to
procedural due process and her right to the timely processing of
applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
under 7 U.S.C. section 2020 (e), as well as claims under New York
state law.
Plaintiff had been paying for storage from 2012 through 2020, and
from 2021 through 2022, during which time HRA paid the monthly
storage fee directly to the storage company. When Plaintiff was
served with eviction, she rented another storage unit and HRA paid
$161.99 a month until August 2023. After August 2023, however, "it
went unpaid [and] accumulated [a] late fee on [the] past due
amount." When Plaintiff inquired, she was not given accurate
information on the application and status of payment and never
received any certified notices by mail.
Plaintiff does not allege that the supervisory officials were
directly and personally involved in any alleged constitutional
violation, and she names no individual who was directly and
personally involved in those alleged violations.
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint in which she names such
individuals as defendants and alleges facts showing how those
individuals were directly and personally involved with the alleged
violations of her federally protected rights with respect to her
receipt of public assistance benefits.
Although Plaintiff asserts that numerous low-income families are
impacted by HRA's alleged failure to meet processing deadlines for
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applications, nowhere in
the complaint does Plaintiff allege specific facts showing that she
herself applied for SNAP benefits, attempted to apply for SNAP
benefits, or that any such application was not processed within the
required timelines. The Court dismisses those claims for lack of
standing, and, therefore, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Radiator Cooling Fan Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Lauren Anderson, Walid
Antonios, Fred Balsam and Calvin Wiley filed a class action lawsuit
against Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.
Why: Anderson, Antonios, Balsam and Wiley claim Nissan knowingly
sold certain model year 2013-2017 Nissan Pathfinder and 2014-2017
Infiniti QX60 vehicles containing one or more defects that could
cause their radiator cooling fans to malfunction and fail.
Where: The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in Tennessee
federal court.
Nissan knowingly manufactured and sold certain model year 2013-2017
Nissan Pathfinder and 2014-2017 Infiniti QX60 vehicles containing
defects that could cause their radiator cooling fan to malfunction
and fail, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Lauren Anderson, Walid Antonios, Fred Balsam and Calvin
Wiley's class action lawsuit claims Nissan has known about the
alleged defects since 2013 -- if not earlier -- but concealed the
defect to "encourage Plaintiffs and Class Members to purchase the
Class Vehicles."
"Defendants have actively concealed the true nature and extent of
the Cooling Fan Defect from Plaintiffs and the other Class Members,
and failed to disclose it to them, at the time of purchase or
lease," the Nissan class action states.
The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class and
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Massachusetts subclasses of all
persons or entities who purchased a class vehicle in the U.S. or
one of the respective states.
Nissan radiator cooling fan defect causes safety hazards, costly
repairs, class action claims
The plaintiffs claim the alleged Nissan radiator cooling fan defect
causes both safety hazards and inconvenience and can lead to a need
for repairs costing in excess of $1,000.
"The Cooling Fan Defect causes a loud rattling sound in the front
of the engine and can result in overheating and ultimately engine
failure -- leaving the vehicle occupants stranded and creating
unreasonable safety risks," the Nissan class action says.
The class action lawsuit claims Nissan is guilty of unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
negligence and fraudulent omission, and of violating the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and multiple state laws.
The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary and
statutory damages for themselves and all class members.
Nissan issued a recall for more than 20,000 of its model year
2022-2024 Infiniti QX60 vehicles in December 2023 over concerns
their Adaptive Front-Light System could improperly adjust the
headlights downward while the vehicle is being driven at certain
speeds.
The plaintiffs are represented by J. Gerard Stranch, IV and Michael
C. Iadevaia of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey PLLC and Mark Greenstone
and Benjamin Donahue of Greenstone Law APC.
The Nissan radiator cooling fan class action lawsuit is Anderson,
et al. v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00257, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee. [GN]
NTH DEGREE: Fails to Secure Clients' Private Info, Thomas Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEJEAN THOMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NTH DEGREE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02476-MLB (N.D. Ga.,
May 6, 2025) alleges that Nth Degree failed to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Nth Degree
clients' first and last name, address, date of birth, social
security number, state identification number/ driver's license
number, bank account information, and health information from
hackers.
On April 14, 2025, Nth Degree filed official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of Maine Attorney General. On or around
the same time, Nth Degree also sent out data breach letters (the
"Notice") to individuals whose information was compromised as a
result of the hacking incident.
Based on the Notice, Nth Degree detected unusual activity on some
of its computer systems on March 24, 2025. In response, the company
conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized
party had access to certain company files between December 12,
2024, and December 20, 2024 (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a
gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, first and
last name, address, date of birth, social security number, state
identification number/ driver's license number, bank account
information, and health information that Nth Degree collected and
maintained, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was
accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach.
Nth Degree is a global event marketing and management company with
its principal place of business at 3237 Satellite Boulevard, Suite
600, Duluth, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Hirsh, Esq.
HIRSH LAW OFFICE, LLC
2295 Towne Lake Parkway, Suite 116-181
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (678) 653-9907
E-mail: michael@hirsh.law
- 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
NUNAVUT: Court Approves $8-Mil. Sex Abuse Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that the Nunavut Court of Justice has
approved a settlement in a class action on behalf of people who
were subjected to sexual abuse while attending Nunavut schools in
Resolute Bay or Clyde River between April 1, 1969 and July 30,
1981, and who were sexually abused by teacher Maurice Cloughley.
The Territory will pay $8,000,000 for: compensation for Class
Members, Class Counsel's legal fees ($2,000,000 plus tax),
disbursements of $95,014.17, to pay $15,000 to each of the
Representative Plaintiffs, and pay for the administration of the
settlement.
Following a Settlement Approval Hearing which was held on June 4,
2024 seeking approval of the settlement, the Judge has now approved
the settlement in a Decision dated April 1, 2025.
The Settlement Funds will be divided between Class Members on the
basis of their injuries, up to a possible maximum $200,000 on any
individual Class Member's claim.
Class Members will need to complete and submit a Claim Form to
RicePoint, the Claims Administrator, on or before November 1, 2025.
[GN]
OPEN LENDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Open Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: LPRO) between
February 24, 2022 and March 31, 2025, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than June 30, 2025.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Open Lending securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Open Lending class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39014 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more
information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 30, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose materially adverse facts
about Open Lending's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants: (1) misrepresented the capabilities of
Open Lending's risk-based pricing models; (2) issued materially
misleading statements regarding Open Lending's profit share
revenue; (3) failed to disclose Open Lending's 2021 and 2022
vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their
corresponding outstanding loan balances; (4) misrepresented the
underperformance of Open Lending's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Open Lending's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Open Lending class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39014 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more
information.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
OPEN LENDING: Bradley Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OPEN LENDING CORPORATION, CHARLES D. JEHL, KEITH A.
JEZEK, and JOHN J. FLYNN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00650 (W.D. Tex., May 1,
2025), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Open Lending securities between February 24,
2022 and March 31, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period") and pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of the Defendants' materially
false and/or misleading statements.
On March 17, 2025, before the market opened, Open Lending disclosed
that it would be unable to timely file its Annual Report for 2024
as it "required additional time to finalize its accounting and
review processes specifically related to its profit share revenue
and related contract assets." On this news, the Company's share
price fell $0.40, or 9.28%, to close at $3.91 per share on March
17, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to
fall the following trading day, declining $0.42, or 10.87%, to
close at $3.49 on March 18, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Then, on March 31, 2025, after the market closed, Open Lending
released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results,
revealing quarterly revenue of negative $56.9 million due in part
to "a $81.3 million reduction in estimated profit share revenues
related to business in historic vintages"; "primarily due to
heightened delinquencies and corresponding defaults associated with
loans originated in 2021 through 2024." On this news, the Company's
share price fell $1.59 or 57.61%, to close at $1.17 per share on
April 1, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants: misrepresented the
capabilities of the Company's risk-based pricing models; issued
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's profit
share revenue; failed to disclose the Company's 2021 and 2022
vintage loans had become worth significantly less than their
corresponding outstanding loan balances; and misrepresented the
underperformance of the Company's 2023 and 2024 vintage loans. As a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Open Lending securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.
Open Lending is a provider of loan services to automotive
lenders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
Joshua A. Karr, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
Phone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
jkarr@holzerlaw.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the OrthoMinds data
breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
OrthoMinds Security Incident: What Happened?
OrthoMinds, LLC, an Alpharetta, Georgia-based provider of
orthodontic software, reported a data breach that may have
compromised information related to services provided to its
clients. In November 2024, the company became aware of an incident
involving its network environment. Further investigation determined
that information stored in certain databases may have been exposed
to unauthorized access from November 17 to November 27, 2024.
OrthoMinds determined through a review of the affected files and
folders that sensitive personal information, including names,
birthdates, medical information, health insurance details, payment
card numbers, and Social Security numbers, may have been accessed.
The company has notified affected clients and is mailing direct
notice to individuals whose information was involved in the
OrthoMinds data breach.
What You Can Do
If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want
to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit
to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing
with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force OrthoMinds to ensure it takes
proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with.
Take Action
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Mancini Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARISA MANCINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS OF CONNECTICUT, P.C., Case No.
3:25-cv-00728 (D. Conn., May 6, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed
to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information
and other personally identifiable information of its patients
and/or employees, including, but not limited to: full names, Social
Security Numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers,
email addresses, ethnicities, patient types, and medical record
numbers.
In early March of 2025, the Defendant detected unusual activity and
determined that Plaintiff's personal information—which was
entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant
would protect it against unauthorized disclosure -- was accessed
and exfiltrated in a data breach (Data Breach).
Accordingly, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for
improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's data was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to
take steps necessary to secure the information from those risks
left the data in a dangerous condition. The Data Breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable
safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable
risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented
administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with
industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the
Data Breach, says the suit.
Orthopaedic Specialists is a health care provider and Connecticut
corporation that provides a variety of healthcare and related
services to its patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Virgil, Esq.
ZELDES, NEEDLE & COOPER, PC.
1000 Lafayette Blvd, 7th Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Telephone: (203) 333-9441
Facsimile: (203) 333-1489
E-mail: jvirgil@znclaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
PANICALE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Mercedes Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MERCEDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PANICALE CORP, Case No. 1:25-cv-03736 (S.D.N.Y., May 5,
2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.thelakehouserest.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Jan. 15, 2025, and again on Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff visited
Defendant's website to make review the menu and make a reservation
at this restaurant. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was
denied an experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded
browsing experience., the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.thelakehouserest.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the services that Defendant offers. BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PAULA'S CHOICE: Appeals Arbitration Clarification Order in Vargison
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part Paula's Choice motion for
clarification in the lawsuit entitled Jesse Vargison, et al.,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Paula's Choice, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00342-TL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a putative class action brought by 107 Plaintiffs against Defendant
Paula's Choice, a manufacturer and purveyor of skincare products,
and two retailers that sell Paula's Choice products, Defendants
Sephora USA and THG Beauty USA. At issue is the veracity of Paula's
Choice's representations that its products are "cruelty-free" and
"never tested on animals," and consumers' reliance on those
representations.
On Oct. 15, 2024, Paula's Choice filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to stay litigation as to eight specific Plaintiffs:
Julia Bartholomew-King, Paige Bridges, Dalit Cohen, Joella
Enriquez, Bridget Froelich, Maura McCartan, Dawn van der Steeg, and
Kristiana Wright. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a response
in opposition to Paula's Choice's motion, and on Dec. 20, 2024,
Paula's Choice filed a reply. In its reply, Paula's Choice added
Plaintiff Samantha Simmons as a ninth Plaintiff whom the Court
should compel to arbitrate her claims against the company.
On Jan. 30, 2025, the Court issued an order that granted in part
and held in abeyance in part Paula's Choice's motion to compel
arbitration and stay litigation. In its Order, the Court found that
three of the Plaintiffs at issue--Cohen, Froelich, and
McCartan--were to arbitrate their claims against Paula's Choice.
These Plaintiffs, the Court found, had "made at least one
additional purchase on the Paula's Choice website after Paula's
Choice filed its motion to compel arbitration."
The Court reasoned that, "As Named Plaintiffs in this case, and
specifically as the subjects of the instant motion to compel, these
three Plaintiffs were put on notice of the existence of the
arbitration agreement (and their acceptance thereof upon making a
purchase) when Paula's Choice raised the issue in the ongoing
litigation."
But as to the other five Plaintiffs, who were the original subjects
of the motion to compel arbitration, the Court could not make a
determination based on the record before it and, pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act, held the motion in abeyance pending the
outcome of a trial on the arbitrability of these Plaintiffs'
claims. The Order did not discuss the arbitrability of Plaintiff
Simmons's claims.
On Feb. 13, 2025, Paula's Choice filed the instant motion,
asserting that the Court's prior order "did not address whether Ms.
Simmons also is compelled to arbitrate" and "request[ing]
confirmation that Ms. Simmons is compelled to arbitrate her claims
for the same reason that the referenced three Named Plaintiffs must
arbitrate theirs--'post-motion purchases' obviously demonstrating
assent" to Paula's Choice's arbitration agreement.
On Feb. 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to
Paula's Choice's "request" and on Feb. 26, 2025, Paula's Choice
filed a reply.
On Mar. 13, 2025, Judge Tana Lin entered an Order granting
Defendant Paula's Choice's motion for clarification regarding
January 30, 2025 Order, and denying its request that Plaintiff
Simmons be compelled to arbitrate her claims.
The Court held that Plaintiff Simmons had not received the same
notice regarding her rights as a class member that Plaintiffs
Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan received by dint of their being the
subjects of the motion to compel. Therefore, Plaintiff Simmons was
not similarly situated to the other three Plaintiffs, and it is,
thus, inappropriate to compel her to arbitrate her claims on the
same basis.
The appellate case is entitled Vargison, et al. v. Paula's Choice,
LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2452, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JESSE VARGISON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Sean Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
- and –
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
11 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Defendants-Appellants PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, et al. are represented
by:
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98154
- and –
Michael J. Duvall, Esq.
DENTONS US, LLP
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
ROBERT LARSON: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Robert Larson
Automotive Group, Inc. The case is styled as Neva Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Robert Larson Automotive Group, Inc. doing business as: Volkswagen
of Tacoma, Case No. 3:25-cv-05373 (W.D. Wash., May 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Larson Automotive Group -- https://www.larsonautomotivegroup.com/
-- is the largest dealer group in the Pacific Northwest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
ROBOTALKER.COM LLC: Thiessen Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robotalker.com LLC.
The case is styled as Diedrich Thiessen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Robotalker.com LLC, Case No.
0:25-cv-60868-RS (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Robotalker -- https://robotalker.com/ -- is one of the best values
in automated calling, that provides reliable automatic phone call,
automated phone messaging and robo texting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
SAPPHIRE NURSING: Wins Verdict in Nursing Home Care Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Hudson News reports that the first class action lawsuit trial
in Orange County Court in recent history, according to legal
insiders, was won by the defense after jury deliberations.
The suit, filed in 2018 by Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP of White Plains, against Sapphire Nursing Home in
Goshen, had asked for $114 million in damages. The plaintiffs
claimed that Sapphire failed to properly care for its residents and
reduced staffing to unsafe levels.
Approximately 900 people were represented by the plaintiffs in a
case presided over by Judge Craig Brown. Sapphire was represented
by attorneys Caitlin Robin and Angela Thompson-Tinsley. A class
action permits one or more plaintiffs to file and prosecute a
lawsuit on behalf of a larger group.
"Plaintiff's counsel alleged that Sapphire Nursing and Rehab at
Goshen improperly diverted assets away from residents," Robin said.
"The nursing home feels vindicated after years of these false
allegations, as the evidence showed overwhelmingly that ownership
invested in the facility both to hire additional staff and improve
the facility for the benefit of residents and staff. The jury
summarily dismissed the claims in this action."
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber have three other
class action suits pending against Sapphire. [GN]
SCRUBS & BEYOND: ClassAction.org Probes Kindthread Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Kindthread data
breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
Kindthread Security Incident: What Happened?
On May 1, 2025, Scrubs & Beyond, LLC, which does business as
Kindthread, announced a data security incident impacting personal
information.
Unauthorized access to the company's network occurred between June
6 and June 9, 2024. The data breach was discovered on June 7, 2024,
and third-party forensic experts were engaged to investigate.
On April 16, 2025, Kindthread completed a review of the impacted
data and began notifying affected individuals. Information
compromised in the Scrubs & Beyond data breach may include names,
birth dates, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers,
financial account details, passport numbers, medical and health
insurance information, and account usernames and passwords. A
report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office indicates
that addresses may have also been exposed.
Scrubs & Beyond and Kindthread are apparel retailers specializing
in the healthcare market, offering scrubs and uniforms.
What You Can Do
If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want
to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit
to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing
with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Kindthread to ensure it takes
proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN]
SL EMPLOYEES INC: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SL Employees, Inc.
The case is styled as Ana Escobar, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. SL Employees, Inc., Case No. CV0006017
(Cal. Super. Ct., Marin Cty., April 22, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
SL develops and markets real-time monitoring, visualization and
diagnostic software for Global 1000 and mid-market companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP. LLP
149 Sheldon St.
El Segundo, CA 90245-3916
Phone: 626-556-5921
Fax: 866-264-7880
Email: carlos@protectionlawgroup.com
SSPS LLC: Boatner Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mars Petcare US, Inc.
The case is styled as Autumn Boatner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SSPS, LLC d/b/a Sportzino, SCPS
LLC doing business as: Zula Casino, Social Gaming LLC d/b/a Fortune
Coins, Blazesoft Ltd., Blazegames, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03251-DEH
(S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
SSPS, LLC doing business as Sportzino -- https://sportzino.com/ --
is a sweepstakes sports casino offering free games and social
sports parlays in one integrated platform.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Hannah Hilligoss, Esq.
Michael Ovca, Esq.
EDELSON PC (CHICAGO)
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 239-3362
Email: ascharg@edelson.com
ewadescott@edelson.com
hhilligoss@edelson.com
movca@edelson.com
- and -
Matthew Steven Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
757 Third Avenue, Ste 20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (469) 895-5269
Email: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Can File Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WESTON, SANDRA
WESTON, SUZANNE BARE, MARY YOUNG, DANIEL YOUNG, TONI BUCHETTO
PERRETTA, CHERYL BOUCHER, DAVID BOUCHER, MARTIN GREENWALD, MARGARET
GREENWALD, ALICE REH, KATHLEEN SEARS, DAVID DIAN, SUSHMA NARULA,
and KATHERINE SPAGNOLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU
CORPORATION f/k/a FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-05876-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal.
The Court further ordered that the Clerk shall maintain under
permanent seal:
The redacted portions of Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion
for Class Certification;
Exhibits 1–5, 8–9, 12–13, 15–19, 24–53, and 61 to the
Declaration of Russell Paul; and
The redacted information contained in Exhibits 20–23 to the
same
Declaration.
The Court agrees that the Sealed Materials were necessary for the
Court's consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, and no lessrestrictive alternative to sealing is
available at this stage of the litigation.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have articulated a clearly defined
and serious injury that would result if disclosure of the Sealed
Materials were to occur.
The Sealed Materials consist primarily of documents produced by
Defendants that are designated "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes
Only" under the Discovery Confidentiality Order entered on Feb. 26,
2021. They contain proprietary engineering data, warranty analyses,
supplier communications, and other non-public business information.
The redacted portions of Exhibits 20–23 contain personally
identifying information (e.g., VINs and home addresses) of the
named Plaintiffs.
Subaru of America is the United States–based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r1VmCP at no extra
charge.[CC]
TARGET CORP: Buckmaster Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jasmine Buckmaster, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case
No. 25-00002-07506-6 was removed from the Pierce County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on May 2, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05375 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Target -- https://www.target.com/ -- is a general merchandise
retailer with stores in all 50 U.S. states and the District of
Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Brian Pizl, Esq.
Matthew Heyert, Esq.
ENTENTE LAW PLLC
315 39th Ave. SW, Ste. 14
Puyallup, WA 98373
Phone: (253) 446-7668
Email: jim@ententelaw.com
mheyert@ententelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Heather L. Shook, Esq.
Emily A. Bushaw, Esq.
PERKINS COIE (SEA)
1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: (206) 359-8154
Fax: (206) 359-9154
Email: hshook@perkinscoie.com
ebushaw@perkinscoie.com
TARGET CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Tovmasyan Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vigen Tovmasyan, v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02314-MRA-KS (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order denying in
substantial part and granting in limited part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss class action complaint and motion to strike class
allegations.
The motion to dismiss is denied in substantial part and granted in
limited part without leave to amend only as to punitive damages
with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the motion to strike is
denied.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 (California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), California's False Advertising Law (FAL),
unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty) for punitive damages
only and DENIES IN PART the Motion as to Claim 3 (CLRA).
Because punitive damages are not an available remedy for
Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty
claims, it is clear that the allegations subject to dismissal
cannot be saved by further amendment. As such, the Plaintiff is
DENIED leave to amend.
The Plaintiff generally alleges that Target falsely and deceptively
advertised its Good & Gather dip products and brings the action
individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated purchasers of the Products for purposes of monetary
recovery and injunctive relief.
The Defendant removed the action to federal court on March 14,
2025.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class defined as
follows:
"All persons or entities that, within the applicable statute
of limitations period, purchased the Products in the United
States, displaying the Challenged Representation on the
Products' labels, for purposes other than resale."
The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a California sub-class
defined as:
"all persons or entities that, within four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint through present, purchased the
Products in California displaying the Challenged
Representation on the Products' labels, for purposes other
than resale."
Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DrsxuG at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEP ROCKY: $41.7-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julianna O'Clair, writing for Post Independent, reports that a
$41.7 million settlement received preliminary approval in a class
action lawsuit against TEP Rocky Mountain LLC, a subsidiary of
Terra Energy Partners.
The lawsuit began with a complaint filed by local enterprise Jolley
Potter Ranches Energy Co. LLC in 2019. It alleges that for almost a
decade TEP underpaid mineral rights owners for natural gas and
hydrocarbon gas liquids collected in the Piceance Basin in Garfield
County from the Grand Valley Gathering System.
It states that TEP underpaid royalties from Aug. 1, 2011 through
Dec. 31, 2020 by deducting unreasonable gathering, processing and
transportation costs and/or paying below-market rates, according to
court documents.
Jolley Potter Ranches discovered the alleged underpayments through
remittance statements, or documents recording proof of payment.
"It's difficult to know exactly what the deductions are for, and
it's impossible to know how the price is calculated," Attorney
Nathan Keever, a Jolley Potter Ranches Class representative, said
regarding the statements. "All you can do is see that they seem off
-- deductions seem high, the price seems low. So it takes,
essentially, discovery, which occurs as part of the litigation
process, to determine why are the deductions high, why is the price
low?"
Jolley Potter Ranches Energy Co. filed the lawsuit as a class
action to cover the cost of experts consulted during the trial,
which adds up to around $400,000 in expenses, according to Keever.
The case now impacts about 1,600 mineral rights owners.
"Settlements range all over the place, but most of them are under
$100,000, and you can't bring in significant litigation against an
oil and gas operator for under $100,000 and come out ahead," Keever
said. "So that's why class action is the ideal way to handle these
matters."
After six years of litigation, TEP agreed to settle and a
preliminary proposed settlement of $41.7 million was approved on
April 11 by U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter.
"We have taken depositions in Houston, Tulsa, Denver, and had built
a pretty good record and block of evidence on our claims," Keever
said. "(TEP) was looking at having to pay back a substantial
amount, plus the continuation of interest on the claim that was
accruing every day.
"To get some resolution, I think that is what motivated them to
say, yeah, we'll come to the table and make a reasonable offer," he
added.
A final fairness hearing will be held Aug. 1, 2025 at the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver.
If the settlement is approved, members of the Jolley Potter Ranches
Class will receive an automatic distribution after attorney fees
and other court-approved expenses are deducted. Gross settlements
for class members range from $10 to over $8 million, according to
the preliminary distribution schedule.
Keever believes the settlement is reasonable, adding that Jolley
Potter Ranches Energy Co. is satisfied with the terms.
"It's a substantial settlement for the amount of deductions that
were taken," Keever said. "The settlement agreement breaks down
specifically how much as a percentage they're getting back for each
of the claims and some of them are as much as 90% of what was
improperly deducted, and all of the claims include 8% interest from
the time of the deduction."
It's a typical underpayment of loyalties case, according to Keever,
who added that "royalty owners just have to keep an eye on their
remitting statements to try to determine if they're getting paid
appropriately."
Neither TEP Rocky Mountain LLC nor representative Chris Chrisman
responded to the Post Independent's request for comment by the time
of publication. [GN]
TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Seeks to Certify Resident Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and
Nicholas Bardsley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order certifying a class of:
"All persons and entities that are owners of residences built
by D.R. Horton in Coastal South Carolina1 which were permitted
for construction on or after July 1, 2016 and before 2024."
Excluded from the Classes are: (a) the Defendants and their
owners and employees, (b) any homeowner that has previously
sued upon or released the claims set forth herein; and, (c)
all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for
exclusion from the Class.
The Plaintiff Class includes a subclass of the first owners of the
residences, who purchased their homes directly from Horton,
referred to as the "Upstream Subclass;" and includes a subclass of
those persons who did not purchase directly from Horton, referred
to as the "Downstream Subclass."
The Plaintiff Vriens is nominated to represent the Upstream
Subclass; Plaintiff Bardsley is nominated to represent the
Downstream Subclass.
The proposed Class satisfies the elements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and class treatment is appropriate in
this case.
The Plaintiffs further move that:
1. Michael Vriens and Nicholas Bardsley be designated as Class
Representatives;
2. Justin Lucey and Amanda Funai of the Lucey Law Firm be
appointed as Class Counsel;
3. The Court approve the proposed Notice Plan and Notice of
Class Action and Exclusion Request Form that is being
submitted contemporaneously herewith; and,
4. Class Counsel be authorized to mail the Notice of Class
Action and Exclusion Request Form to all Class members at
their last known address as maintained by D.R. Horton’s
records (or by email for those class members for which
Plaintiffs have a reliable email address).
Tip Top is a full-service roofing company, specializing in new
construction, tear-offs, re-roofs, flat roofs, roof repairs and
roof maintenance.
The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, Pacific
Contractors, Inc., Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC,
Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC,
CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck
Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC,
Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor,
LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc.,
TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim
Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star
Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc.,
Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City
Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction,
Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building
Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing,
Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior
Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP,
USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a
US LBM, LLC, SEE Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Southend Exteriors,
Professional Builders Supply, LLC d/b/a Professional Builders
Supply Commercial PRSRE-GVL, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc.,
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nKzzui at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq.
Amanda Funai, Esq.
JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A.
415 Mill Street
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 849-8400
E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
mfunai@lucey-law.com
TTE TECHNOLOGY INC: Herrick Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stephan Herrick, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TTE Technology, Inc. doing business
as: TCL North America, Case No. CVRI2500738 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 17,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00945-SB-SP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
TTE Technology, Inc. -- https://www.ttetechnology.com/ -- designs
and markets televisions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annick Marie Persinger
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 254-6808
Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
David A McGee, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher M. Young, Esq.
Ashley Lauren Barton, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Phone: (619) 699-2700
Fax: (619) 699-2701
Email: christopher.young@dlapiper.com
ashley.barton@us.dlapiper.com
- and -
Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
555 Mission Street Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Phone: (415) 836-2500
Fax: (415) 836-2501
Email: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
UEM SUNRISE: Court Favors Subsidiary in Homebuyers Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
FocusM reports that the Shah Alam High Court had on Wednesday,
April 30, ruled on favour of Symphony Hills Sdn Bhd, a subsidiary
of UEM Sunrise Bhd.in a "class action" case where a group of six
homebuyers claimed for late delivery of vacant possession.
In an oral decision delivered by Judicial Commissioner Justice
Indra Nehru Savandiah, the Court concluded that it was bound by the
Federal Court's landmark decision in Obata-Ambak Holdings Sdn Bhd v
Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd & other appeals in July 2024.
The then landmark ruling held that the earlier Federal Court's
decision in Ang Ming Lee & Ors v Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar,
Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & anor and other appeals would only
apply prospectively.
The Symphony Hills case which began in 2021 revolved around
allegations that the approval by the Controller of Housing in
granting an extension of time to deliver vacant possession was
invalid as the Federal Court in Ang Ming Lee found Regulation 11(3)
of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989
to be ultra vires of the Housing Development (Control and
Licensing) Act 1966.
The proceedings were initially stayed pending the determination of
the Obata-Ambak case in the Federal Court.
After the decision of the Obata-Ambak case was delivered, the
homebuyers and the developer filed two separate applications
respectively for the proceedings to be determined based on
questions of law.
The developer sought for the court to determine these questions of
law, among others:
-- Whether the Federal Court's decision in Obata-Ambak would
apply;
-- Whether the letter of approval granted by the Controller of
Housing is valid;
-- Whether the Federal Court's decision in Ang Ming Lee applies
prospectively; and
-- Whether the Second Actor Theory applies to the developer who
had relied and acted on the letter of approval granted by the
Controller of Housing within the-then existing legal framework.
In delivering the decision, the Shah Alam High Court emphasised
that it is bound by the decision of the Federal Court in
Obata-Ambak.
The homebuyers' application was dismissed with costs of RM10,000
while the developer's application was allowed and the homebuyers'
claim for liquidated ascertained damages was dismissed with costs
of RM20,000 to be paid jointly and severally by the homebuyers to
the developer.
Nurin Ayuni Nazira acted for the group of homebuyers while Leonard
Yeoh together with Caleb Sio and Chen Mei Yan of Tay & Partners
acted for Symphony Hills Sdn Bhd.
At the close of May 2 mid-day trading, UEM-Sunrise was up 2 sen or
2.78% to 74 sen with 3.87 million shares traded, thus valuing the
company at RM3.74 mil. [GN]
UNIGO LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing in McLee Due Dec. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA MCLEE, v. UNIGO
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05702-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Murphy
entered an order as follows
1. Deadline to amend pleadings to add July 11, 2025
claims or parties:
2. Deadline for the Plaintiff's Dec. 18, 2025
affirmative expert reports
(if any) and disclosure of lay
witness opinion testimony with
related information and documents
(if any):
3. Deadline for the Defendant's expert Feb. 26, 2026
reports (if any):
4. Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Dec. 18, 2025
her Class Certification motion:
5. Deadline for the Defendant to file Feb. 26, 2026
its Opposition to the Plaintiff's
Class Certification motion:
6. Deadline for the Plaintiff's Reply March 26, 2026
in support of Class Certification:
7. Deadline for the Plaintiff's rebuttal March 26, 2026
expert reports (if any):
8. Deadline(s) to complete fact Dec. 4, 2025
discovery:
9. Deadline to complete expert April 9, 2026
discovery:
Unigo is an crowdsourced review website for colleges and
universities.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zEQE6i at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Mass. Fair Housing Appeals Order Dissolving TRO
--------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACHUSETTS FAIR HOUSING CENTER, et al. are taking an appeal from
a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dissolve the
temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit entitled
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Department of
Housing and Urban Development, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-30041-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit
alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
On Mar. 13, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for TRO, which
Judge Richard G. Stearns granted on Mar. 26, 2025.
On Apr. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dissolve the TRO,
which Judge Stearns granted on Apr. 14, 2025.
The Defendants moved to dissolve this Court's TRO based on the
Supreme Court's recent stay of a similar order in Department of
Education v. California, 604 U.S. The Supreme Court nonetheless
found that the government was likely to succeed in showing that the
Plaintiffs in California sought to enforce a contractual obligation
to pay money. Because the Plaintiffs assert essentially the same
claim here, that the agency did not terminate the grant in
accordance with statutory or regulatory authority, it follows that
the Plaintiffs are likewise likely seeking to enforce a contractual
obligation to pay money. This decision should not be read as an
endorsement of the brusque and seemingly insensitive way in which
the terminations were announced nor as casting doubt on the First
Circuit's assessment that the Plaintiffs in the California case may
well likely succeed on the merits of at least some of their claims.
The Court is merely deferring (as it must) to the Supreme Court's
unmistakable directive that, for jurisdictional purposes, the
proper forum for this case is the Court of Federal Claims, Judge
Stearns opined.
The appellate case is captioned Massachusetts Fair Housing Center,
et al. v. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.,
Case No. 25-1368, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on April 16, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MASSACHUSETTS FAIR HOUSING CENTER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Lila Miller, Esq.
Reed Colfax, Esq.
RELMAN COLFAX PLLC
19th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-1888
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
Email: lmiller@relmanlaw.com
rcolfax@relmanlaw.com
VERMILION, SD: Residents Sue to Recover Income Taxes Collected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Beriswill of The Morning Journal reports that three
Vermilion residents, who worked outside of the city from 2018 to
2022, filed a class action lawsuit against the city to recover
income taxes collected between 2018 and 2022.
According to a news release, Avon Lake attorney Gerald Phillips is
representing Thomas and Corrie Ostrowski, and Roy B. Anderson
against the city, Finance Director Amy Hendricks and the Regional
Income Tax Agency, or RITA.
The lawsuit seeks more than $25,000 restitution, which requires the
return of city income taxes unjustly collected and withheld and
punitive damages exceeding $25,000, it says.
The suit was filed April 15 and addresses a Resident Income Tax
Credit ordinance enacted in 2018 at 1 percent by Vermilion City
Council.
The credit was reverted back to one-half percent in 2022, and the
ordinance was repealed as the credit was reenacted the same year.
Vermilion residents working outside the city were entitled to a 1
percent Resident Income Tax Return on tax returns, granted the
employment income tax rate of outside cities is 1 percent or higher
and collected half of what was expected, the release states.
"This is just not right and intolerable," Phillips said in the
release. "This is why the class action lawsuit has been filed.
"So, the Vermilion residents can get what they deserve."
Phillips stated that Vermilion Mayor Jim Forthofer and City Council
have "known about this unjust enrichment and benefit" to the city
at the expense of residents working in other cities since June
2022, and have failed to take action.
Forthofer declined to comment.
Hendricks and officials at the Regional Income Tax Agency could not
be reached for comment.
The Resident Income Tax Credit remained at one-half percent for tax
years 2023-24, however, Ordinance No. 2025-12, which passed April
7, reinstated the full 1 percent credit for tax years between 2018
and 2022, according to the release.
"No one resident would file this legal action to recover the amount
wrongfully collected and withheld since the legal costs would far
exceed the amount of their recovery," Phillips said. "This is why
the class action has been filed." [GN]
VESTA MINE: Gray Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GRAY, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated, v. VESTA MINE SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a VESTA MINE SUPPLY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01069-KT (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of, and authorizing notice to be sent to, the
following collective:
"All hourly Vesta miners and similar job titles who worked at
any time during the past 3 years until final resolution of
this Action (the "FLSA Collective Members" or "Miners")."
Vesta is a mining product's supply house who focuses on mining
constructions products, doors, bits, drill steels, hoses, and PPE.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iEW0Xp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
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
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
VESYNC CORP: Chen Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order allowing him to file under seal
documents containing information or references to information that
Defendant designated as either Confidential or Highly Confidential
– Attorney's Eyes Only.
The Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies
at class certification.
The Plaintiff submits this request only to comply with their
obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and the protective order issued
in the case, and takes no position at this time on the propriety of
other parties’ confidentiality designations, or whether they meet
the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court seal the documents or
portions thereof, filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification:
These documents all reference and rely upon testing and sales
information produced by Vesync Corporation and designated by Vesync
as "confidential" pursuant to the Parties' stipulated protective
order entered by the Court.
Vesync is a provider of diversified smart home products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CXDEL1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 370-3912
E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com
VESYNC CORP: Chen Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VESYNC
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff,
on Sept. 16, 2025, will move the Court for an order granting his
motion to certify the Classes, appointing Mr. Chen as class
representative, and appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and
Sinderbrand Law Group, P.C. as class counsel.
Whether the Court should appoint Plaintiff as the class
representative, appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Sinderbrand Law
Group, P.C. as class counsel, and certify the following Classes:
"All persons in California who, within the relevant statute of
limitations period, purchased one or more Levoit Core 300 True
HEPA, Core 300-RAC True HEPA, Core P350 True HEPA, and Core
300S True HEPA home air purifiers or replacement filters
bearing the "True HEPA" claim (the "California Class")"; and
"All persons in California, Delaware, D.C., Kansas, Missouri,
New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia who,
within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased
one or more Levoit Core 300 True HEPA, Core 300-RAC True HEPA,
Core P350 True HEPA, and Core 300S True HEPA home air
purifiers or replacement filters bearing the "True HEPA" claim
(the "Multi-State Express Warranty Class")."
Vesync is a provider of diversified smart home products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dBPqHi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 370-3912
E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany Sackrin, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
jpollack@4-justice.com
Eservice@4-justice.com
DGeorge@4-justice.com
BSackrin@4-justice.com
EService@4-justice.com
- and -
Miles Greaves, Esq.
Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 William Street, Suite 1900a
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 873-7654
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
- and -
Jason Samual Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
VIA RENEWABLES: Class Cert Hearing in Clark Suit Set for May 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clark v. Via Renewables,
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 30, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting
stipulation regarding briefing schedule on Offer of Proof regarding
class certification and an amended class definition.:
-- Plaintiff's Brief to be filed no later than April 24, 2025.
-- Defendant's Opposition to be filed no later than May 8, 2025.
-- Plaintiff's Reply to be filed no later than May 15, 2025.
-- Hearing on the motion is set for May 27, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Via Renewables operates as an independent retail energy services
company in the United States. The company engages in the
transmission and sale of electricity to residential and commercial
customers.[CC]
VULCAN MATERIALS: Parrish Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bert Parrish, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Vulcan Materials Company, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-01523-KML (D, Ariz., May 5, 2025) is a class and collective
action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Vulcan under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate
Parrish and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration -- for all hours
worked in excess of 40 a workweek. Vulcan thus fails to timely pay
all earned wages due on designated paydays and upon termination of
employment, in violation of the federal and state laws.
Vulcan employed Parrish as one of its Hourly Employees. Parrish and
the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a
workweek. But Vulcan does not pay Parrish and the other Hourly
Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay
-- based on all remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess
of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Vulcan pays Parrish and the other
Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include
in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, alleges the
suit.
Vulcan has employed Parrish as a drag line operator in Arizona
since approximately December 2023.
Vulcan is a producer of construction aggregates -- primarily
crushed stone, sand and gravel -- and a producer of aggregates
based construction materials, including asphalt and ready-mixed
concrete.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.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
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
WALMART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 8
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Daniel J.
Calabretta entered an order granting the Parties' joint
administrative motion to extend fact discovery deadline and set
class certification related deadlines:
Event 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, 2025
Class Certification Hearing: April 2, 2026
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5yeNZT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bid to Dismiss Plaintiff's SAC Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS In the
class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SANDERS and BRIANNE
SANDERS, v. WAYNE COUNTY, Case No. 2:23-cv-10789-LVP-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda V. Parker entered an order denying
Wayne County's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.
In summary, the Court concludes that Bowles tolled the Sanders'
section 1983 takings claim. Therefore, the claim is not time
barred. Having reached that decision, there is no reason provided
by Wayne County for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Sanders' inverse condemnation claim.
The lawsuit, filed by Plaintiffs Matthew and Brianne Sanders,
arises from the Defendant Wayne County's foreclosure of their six
properties due to tax delinquencies.
In a Complaint filed on April 6, 2023, the Sanders alleged that
Wayne County violated the law by not returning to them the "surplus
value" (that being, the value of the properties minus the amount
owed for unpaid taxes, plus reasonable fees and expenses).
The Settlement Class was defined as:
"All real property owners formerly owning real property within
the County of Oakland who had their real property foreclosed
for non-payment of taxes pursuant to the Michigan General
Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78, et seq., which was sold at tax
auction for more than the amount owed in unpaid taxes,
interest, penalties and fees and were not refunded the surplus
amount."
The period at issue is June 8, 2009 through July 17, 2020.
Any former property owner who has filed their own post-
foreclosure civil lawsuit which has become final or has
otherwise settled with Oakland County is excluded.
The Bowles plaintiffs defined the putative class as:
"All the owners of real property in Oakland and Wayne Counties
whose real property, during the relevant time period, was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure by the
Defendants and which was worth and/or sold at tax auction for
more than the total Tax Delinquency and was not refunded the
excess Equity."
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 2, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VGN8rl
at no extra charge.[CC]
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces that, on May 5,
2025, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Complaint")
on behalf of its client the New England Teamsters Pension Fund
("New England Teamsters") against West Pharmaceutical Services,
Inc. ("West" or the "Company") (NYSE: WST) and certain West
executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is
captioned New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc., No. 25-cv-02285 (E.D. Pa.) asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired West common stock between February 16, 2023 and
February 12, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period").
West is a medical supplies company based in Exton, Pennsylvania
that operates as a key supplier to firms in the pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and generic drug industries. The Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose
that: (a) despite claiming strong visibility into customer demand
and attributing headwinds to temporary COVID-related product
destocking, West was in fact experiencing significant and ongoing
destocking across its high-margin High-Value Products portfolio;
(b) West's SmartDose device, which was purportedly positioned as a
high-margin growth product, was highly dilutive to the Company's
profit margins due to operational inefficiencies; (c) these margin
pressures created the risk of costly restructuring activities,
including the Company's exit from continuous glucose monitoring
contracts with long-standing customers; and (d) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.
The truth about this fraud was revealed over a series of
disclosures culminating on February 13, 2025, when West issued
extremely weak 2025 revenue and earnings forecasts. West attributed
the disappointing guidance in part to contract manufacturing
headwinds, including the loss of two major continuing glucose
monitoring customers that had begun transitioning to in-house
manufacturing of next-generation devices after West "made the
decision to not participate going forward as our financial
thresholds cannot be achieved." West also revealed that its
SmartDose wearable injector devices would be "margin-dilutive" in
2025 and that it would be "taking steps to improve [its SmartDose]
economics, and all options are on the table." On this news, West's
stock dropped $123.17 per share, a decline of 38 percent, to close
at $199.11 on February 13, 2025.
If you purchased or acquired West common stock during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than July 7, 2025.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are
a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share
in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Connor C. Boehme,
Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780, or via email at
cboehme@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint online
here.
New England Teamsters is represented by Labaton, which represents
many of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$4.5 trillion. Labaton's litigation reputation is built on its
half-century of securities litigation experience, more than ninety
full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton has been recognized for
its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently
ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New
York, Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton is available at labaton.com.
Contacts
Connor Boehme, Esq.
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
(212) 907-0780
cboehme@labaton.com [GN]
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES,
INC., ERIC M. GREEN, BERNARD J. BIRKETT, and QUINTIN J. LAI, Case
No. 2:25-cv-02285 (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2025) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
West common stock between Feb.16, 2023, and Feb. 12, 2025,
inclusive.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
West reports its business results in two segments: Proprietary
Products and Contract Manufacturing (CM). The Proprietary Products
segment manufactures and sells West's proprietary drug packaging
and delivery products to biologic, generic, and pharmaceutical drug
customers. Within this segment, the Company classifies its
offerings as High-Value Products (HVP) and standard products.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, West experienced a significant surge
in demand as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies rapidly
increased their purchases of injectable components for COVID-19
vaccine delivery devices. At the same time, supply chain
disruptions caused by the pandemic prompted the Company's customers
to stockpile other West products for non-COVID-19 uses.
However, in the aftermath of the pandemic, these same customers
reduced their purchasing activity as they worked through the excess
inventories they had amassed. Consequently, throughout 2023 and
2024, West experienced a significant slowdown in order volumes
across its customer base.
While Defendants publicly acknowledged this broad-based destocking
trend, they repeatedly assured investors that West had strong
visibility into customer inventory levels and their demand for the
Company's products. As a result, investors were misled into
believing that West's financial pressures were temporary and
industrywide, when in fact, undisclosed customer losses and margin
deterioration posed a substantial and continuing threat to the
Company's profitability, says the suit.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misled investors by
failing to disclose that despite claiming strong visibility into
customer demand and attributing headwinds to temporary
COVID-related product destocking, West was in fact experiencing
significant and ongoing destocking across its high-margin HVP
portfolio.
The truth about this fraud was revealed over a series of
disclosures culminating on February 13, 2025, when West issued
extremely weak 2025 revenue and earnings forecasts. West attributed
the disappointing guidance in part to CM headwinds, including the
loss of two major CGM customers that had begun transitioning to
in-house manufacturing of next-generation devices after West "made
the decision to not participate going forward as our financial
thresholds cannot be achieved."
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other
members of the Class have suffered significant damages, alleges the
suit.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired West common stock
during the Class Period and was damaged as the rest of Defendants'
wrongdoing alleged in the complaint.
West is a medical supplies company based in Exton, Pennsylvania,
that operates as a key supplier to firms in the pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and generic drug industries. The Company specializes
in the development, manufacture, and distribution of
elastomer-based supplies for the containment and administration of
injectable drugs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
- and -
Francis P. McConville
Connor C. Boehme
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
cboehme@labaton.com
WESTSIDE COMMUNITY: Ross Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westside Community
Mental Health Center. The case is styled as Anthony Ross, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. Westside Community Mental Health Center, Does 1
Through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25624970 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., May 2, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Westside Community Services -- https://www.westside-health.org/ --
is a mental health agency dedicated to improving the psychological,
spiritual and physical health of a diverse range of individuals and
families who are dealing with the following: emotional crises,
overwhelming life circumstances, severe and debilitating mental
health challenges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
WHITESTONE HOME: Douglass Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WHITESTONE HOME
FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a SAATVA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00460-DSC (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge David Stewart Cercone entered an order
granting the plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement
purposes and for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The proposed Settlement Class is preliminarily certified pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of
settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as:
"A national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who
have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary
Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have
accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access,
or be deterred from attempting to access,
https://www.saatva.com/ from the United States.
The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a
result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as
representative of the Settlement Class.
The Court Court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker,
Abramowicz, Steiger, Moore, Conahan, and Liu as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class.
The Court finds that the Long-Form Notice attached to the Agreement
as Agreement Exhibit 1 and the Notice Plan attached to the pending
motion as Exhibit 2 meet due process requirements, the requirements
of Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and ensure notice is well calculated to reach
representative class members.
Whitestone is a company that sells and manufactures luxury
mattresses, bedding, and furniture.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qlPVfR at no extra
charge.[CC]
YALE NEW HAVEN: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Case
No. 3:25-cv-00714 (D. Conn., May 2, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable
information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI,"
collectively, "Private Information"), which, as a result, is now in
criminal cyberthieves' possession.
In early March 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's
network server and stole Plaintiff's and approximately 5.5 million
Class Members' in early March 2025, hackers targeted and accessed
Defendant's network server and stole Plaintiff's and approximately
5.5 million Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private
Information, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class
Members (the "Data Breach").
The Defendant breached duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members
by failing to safeguard their Private Information that it collected
and maintained, including failing to implement industry standards
for data security to protect against, detect, and stop
cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and
steal patients' Private Information from Defendant's care.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect 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 patients' sensitive data.
The Defendant maintained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information in a reckless manner, including maintaining on and/or
making Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
accessible from Defendant's network in a condition that left it
vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a current patient of Defendant and received
healthcare services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a healthcare provider furnishing a wide variety of
services to Connecticut patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Reilly, Esq.
CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP
364 Franklin Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
Phone: 860-296-3457
Fax: 860-296-0676
Email: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, ALC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Phone: (513) 381-2333
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
ZTEX CONSTRUCTION: Teran Files Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZTEX Construction,
Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Teran, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ZTEX Construction, Inc., Case
No. 3:25-cv-00160-KC (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2025).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I.
ZTEX Construction -- https://www.ztexconstruction.com/ -- is a
heavy civil contractor specializing in earthwork, asphalt paving,
and overall project management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-2325
Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.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 ***