250515.mbx

250515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 97 Headlines 2020 COMPANIES: Sidhu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. 89TH MARKET INC: Perez Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay 961 W PALM DRIVE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property 9W HALO: Bid to Certify Class in Smith Suit Partly OK'd A&A SERVICES: Schrieo Suit Consolidated with Sav-Rx Litigation ADVANCE AMERICA: Figueroa Suit Removed to E.D. California AGILITI HEALTH: Quiles Suit Removed to C.D. California AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Hardy Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Wins Bid to Certify Class ANDROS FOODS: French Representations "Misleading," Graham Alleges ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Patterson Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info BASEBALL AMERICA: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Messina Says BLOOMWORKS WELLNESS: Matthews Sues Over Withholding Employees' Tips BODY CONTOUR: Bid to Stay Discovery in Privacy Lawsuit Denied BROOKLYN INDUSTRIES: Wills Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Lane Says BYTEDANCE INC: J.R. Suit Transferred to C.D. California BYTEDANCE INC: White Suit Transferred to C.D. California CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Kahn Sues Over Disclosure of Patient Info CORSO COMMERCE: Barz Suit Removed to C.D. California COURTNEY JONES: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons CREDIT SESAME: Miller Sues Over Unmaintained Security Measures DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DNC PARKS & RESORTS: Peraino Suit Removed to S.D. California DOE RUN RESOURCES: Grandstaff Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DSCC LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response EIDP INC: Caporale Suit Seeks Class Certification ELLIS HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Opt-in Plaintiffs in Davella EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gutman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York EMERALD OAK APARTMENTS: Mastriano Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ENDUE INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint EUROSTAR INC: Faces Manning Suit Over Telemarketing Messages EVOQUA WATER: Correa Suit Removed to C.D. California FCA US: Seeks to Dismiss Graves's Amended Class Action FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal FILTERBABY LLC: Love Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions GEICO: Fischer's Reply to Opposition Due June 11 GOLDCO DIRECT: Summerton Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GOODRX INC: AIDS Healthcare Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GROW SMART: Non-Expert Discovery in Reyes Class Suit Due Dec. 29 HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing in McRee Extended to June 2 HERTZ CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 9 HESS CORP: Response to Wagner Class Cert Bid Due May 19 HLB90067 INC: Miller Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website HOME DEPOT USA: Obomanu Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Leverman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Allen Due June 2 IGLOO PRODUCTS: Tow Rolling Cooler "Defective," Riffle Suit Claims J. J. F. MANAGEMENT: Norwood Files Suit in D. Maryland JOSE PLEHN-DUJOWICH: Hu Suit transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bird Files Suit in D. Maryland KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Gale Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info KEURIG DR PEPPER: Hod Balks at Unfair Use of Lie Detector Tests LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL: Cook Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info LELAND DUDEK: Deadlines Stayed Pending Class Cert Resolution LIBERTY HOME GUARD: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LIQUID TRANSPORT: Hunt Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. LONG BEACH, CA: Russo Sues Over Data Breach LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Johnson Seeks Production of Contact Information LOS ANGELES, CA: Hill Seeks Conditional Cert of Opt-in Action LUCK GROVE: Gutierrez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 8 MARS PETCARE US: Attias Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee MCLANE COMPANY: McGowan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid MDL 2992: Court Stays Suit Pending Supreme Court Review MDL 3144: 6 Suits Consolidated in TikTok Minor Privacy Row MDL 3145: Panel Denies Transfer of 2 Suits to Bodycam Antitrust Row MILANNI'S LLC: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Lozano Suit Claims NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Long Says NTH DEGREE: Faces Hardin Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Peck Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ORIGIN MATERIALS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soto Due April 3, 2026 PAUL HESSE: Clas Cert Hearing in White Suit Set for July 14 PENSKE LOGISTICS: Nelson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Rejects Bid to Remand Angulo Case RARE BEAUTY: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Miller Alleges ROCKY BRANDS: Casillas Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. SETPOINT INTEGRATED: Kubala Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SODEXO INC: Faces Snyder Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info TD BANK: Charges Fees for Paper Billing Statements, Hastings Says TRAP YOUR MOLES: Haught Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages UNITED WHOLESALE: Improperly Uses Forfeited Plan Assets, Lapko Says UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Kotalik Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties VGW HOLDINGS: Lighter Balks at Illegal Gambling Business Practices VITALITY GUARD: Carter Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls VOLUSIA, FL: Court Reopens Powell Case, Permits Amend Complaint [] Seyfarth Shaw Appoints Giovanna Ferrari as Litigation Chair ********* 2020 COMPANIES: Sidhu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2020 Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Harman Singh Sidhu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. 2020 Companies, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006412 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." 2020 Companies -- https://www.2020companies.com/ -- is one of the premier outsourced sales and marketing agencies in the United States.[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 89TH MARKET INC: Perez Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Jose Antonio Islas Perez, Fernando Rodriguez Sanchez, Enrique Romero Agustin, German Cuazitl Betancurt, Bernardo Revilla Gutierrez, Fnina Bourhim, and Jacinto Torres Perez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 89TH MARKET INC., 8TH STREET MARKET CORP., HEAVENLY MARKET INC. I, 22 2ND AVE FOOD MARKET CORP., HEAVENLY FOOD MARKET 11TH AVENUE, INC., HEAVENLY MARKET SULLIVAN INC., ABDULLAH SALEH MUSLEH ALKABADI, MOHAMMED A. MUSLEH, GAMAL A. MUSLEH, ALI A. MUSLEH, OMAR A. ALKABADI, MAGED A. ALKABADI, WALEED ABDULLAH SALEH, AHMED A. SALEH, and DOES NO. 1 through NO. 20, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-03742 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025), is brought to recover overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). During the relevant time period, for their work for Defendants, Plaintiffs were not paid the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and were not paid overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid minimum wage, unpaid spread of hours premiums, and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former non-management employees who worked for Defendants as general grocery and deli workers throughout various locations of Defendants' delis throughout the New York City area. The Defendants have owned and operated a portfolio of deli and market businesses in New York state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Web: www.peltongraham.com - and - Stephen D. Hans, Esq. STEPHEN D. HANS & ASSOCIATES P.C. Nils C. Shillito (NS 6755) 30-30 Northern Blvd., Suite 401 Long Island City, NY 11101 Phone: (718) 275 6700 Web: www.hansassociates.com 961 W PALM DRIVE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. 961 W PALM DRIVE LLC; VALERO FOOD MART ADS, LLC and TAQUERIA MORELIA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-22090-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described Commercial Property, and with respect to the allegations of this Complaint. The Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the Commercial Property, in violation of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. 961 W PALM DRIVE LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com 9W HALO: Bid to Certify Class in Smith Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH C. SMITH, v. 9W HALO WESTERN OPCO L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01968-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following Rule 23(b)(3) classes: -- Recordkeeping Meal Period Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants, excluding those in supervisory or managerial roles, who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and whose timekeeping records reflect a late, shortened, or missed meal period." -- Auto-Deduct Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees of the Defendants, excluding those in supervisory or managerial roles who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period beginning on Sept. 26, 2017, through the date of final judgment, and who had a half-hour of time deducted from their pay on each shift." The Court denies Smith's motion to certify a Second Meal Period Class, Overtime Class, and Off-the-Clock Class. The Court sets a further case management conference for May 15, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a further case management conference statement, compliant with Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), by noon on May 8, 2025. From Nov. 9, 2017, to May 6, 2019, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee for the Defendant 9W Halo Western OpCo L.P. dba Angelica ("Angelica"). Smith avers Angelica maintained a policy or practice of denying Smith and putative class members the full 30-minute meal breaks to which they are entitled under California law. 9w Halo supplies linen to commercial establishments and household users. A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jLD4eB at no extra charge.[CC] A&A SERVICES: Schrieo Suit Consolidated with Sav-Rx Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Ryan C. Carson of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the class complaint in the case captioned as SEAN SCHRIEO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. A&A SERVICES, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-51. The defendant's motions to consolidate Schrieo v. A&A Services, et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-51 with In re: Sav-Rx Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:24-cv-204 is also granted. Plaintiff filed his complaint in state court in California on July 16, 2024. Defendants were served on Nov. 29, 2024. On Dec. 11, 2024, A&A Services, LLC d/b/a Sav-Rx removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On Dec. 20, 2024, Defendant Sav-Rx filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. This action was transferred to this court on Feb. 6, 2025. Motion to Amend Class Complaint Plaintiff seeks to add a claim for Defendant's alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 638.51. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend was filed after undue delay and purely as a tactical maneuver to avoid consolidation. They were served this action in November 2024, and it was transferred to this district in February 2025. Plaintiff additionally alleges that the CIPA violations were not known to Plaintiff until December 2024, after Defendants were served and while this action was pending a venue change. According to the Court, it is unclear what prejudice would befall the Defendants were the Plaintiff given leave to amend its class complaint to add the additional theory of recovery. The record shows that this case is still in the very early stages of litigation. Defendants have not filed an answer and no discovery has been completed because the parties agreed to stay progression of this matter pending resolution of the instant motions. Because the Court finds that there is no prejudice to Defendants, the motion for leave to amend is granted. Motion to Consolidate Schrieo's Amended Complaint asserts violations of: (1) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, (2) California Consumer Privacy Act, (3) California Unfair Competition Law, and (4) California Trap and Trace Law. Both Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the Consolidated Class Action Complaint assert claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of individuals allegedly affected by Sav-Rx's October 2023 data breach. Defendant seeks to consolidate this case with the Consolidated Action because both cases arise from the same set of facts and raise the same questions of law. Plaintiff opposes consolidation because the newly added claim under the California Trap and Trace Claim warrants separate consideration by a jury. Plaintiff states that this new claim adds allegations that Defendant unlawfully installed tracking software on its website, which is separate and apart from the data breach. Upon review of the cases, the Court finds consolidation is appropriate because these actions involve common questions of law and fact arising from Defendant Sav-Rx's alleged data breach. Due to the similarity of the claims, the parties will likely serve similar discovery and present similar motions and arguments. Consolidation will avoid duplicative parallel activities, save time, avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings, and be more cost-effective. The Court understands and considered that the newly added CIPA claim will require additional evidence distinct from the data breach case. However, those claims can be pled as a similar putative subclass in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, much like those for the residents of Washington or Missouri bringing independent state law claims. The Court finds in the interest of convenience and judicial economy that consolidation is appropriate. Case No. 8:24-cv-204 has previously been designated as the Lead Case in the In re: Sav-Rx Data Breach Litigation. The clerk is directed to designate Case No. 8:25-cv-51 as a "Member Case." Plaintiff is instructed to confer with interim class counsel in the Lead Case and must file an amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in 8:24-cv-204, to include allegations contained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, within thirty (30) days of this Order. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 29, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UqWHnq from PacerMonitor.com. ADVANCE AMERICA: Figueroa Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Claudia Y. Ruelas Figueroa, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS OF CA, a business entity of unknown form; CASH ADVANCE CNTRS OF CALIFORNIA LLC, a business entity of form unknown; PURPOSE FINANCIAL, INC. a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG01478 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00534-JLT-EPG. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Failure to Pay Vacation Wages Under Labor Code Section 227.3; Meal Period Liability; Rest Break Period Liability; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a); Violation of Labor Code Section 221; Violation of Labor Code Section 204; Violation of Labor Code Section 203; Failure to Maintain Records Required Under Labor Code Sections 1174, 1174.5; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses under Labor Code Section 2802; and Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jannine E. Kranz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Email: jkranz@littler.com AGILITI HEALTH: Quiles Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Erica Rose Quiles, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AGILITI HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09909 was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04032. The Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against Agiliti: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com enabiev@moonlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Joel Andersen, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-305-7500 Facsimile: 612-305-7501 Email: jandersen@nilanjohnson.com AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Hardy Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUNDREA HARDY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03945-FLA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 9, 2025, will move the Court for an order to certify her claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ("Rule 23"), and appoint the Plaintiff's counsel, Mayall Hurley P.C., as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the following class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3) for resolution of each of her six causes of action: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Airport Management Services, LLC, at Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") who worked during one or more pay periods from April 1, 2020, through the date of class certification (the "Minimum Wage Class")"; "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant at LAX who worked overtime during one or more pay periods from April 1, 2020, through the date of class certification (the "Overtime Subclass")"; "All former non-exempt employees of Defendant at LAX who worked during one or more pay periods from April 1, 2021, through the date of class certification (the "Waiting Time Penalty Subclass")"; and "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant at LAX who were furnished one or more wage statements from April 1, 2023, through the date of class certification (the "Wage Statement Subclass")." Airport Management provides commercial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0iE3k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Gorham III, Esq. Nicholas F. Scardigli, Esq. Robert J. Wassermann, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 112 S. Church St. Lodi, CA 95240 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 E-mail: wgorham@mayallaw.com nscardigli@mayallaw.com rwassermann@mayallaw.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Wins Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA et al., v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion to exclude expert report. The court certifies the following class: "All individuals who signed an Allstate R3001, R3001A, R3001S, or R3001C Exclusive Agency Agreement and who worked as an Allstate exclusive agent in the State of California during the class period." The court appoints Plaintiffs Jasibel Canchola, Carlos Ochoa, Richard Curtis, and Robert Souza as the class representatives and Charles J. Crueger, Erin K. Dickinson, Benjamin Kaplan, and James Tilton of Crueger Dickison LLC, Edward A. Wallace, Mark R. Miller, and Matthew J. Goldstein of Wallace Miller, and Gretchen M. Nelson and Gabriel S. Barenfeld of Nelson & Fraenkel LLP as class counsel. The court also orders the parties to promptly meet and confer regarding the submission of a joint stipulated class notice and distribution plan and file either a stipulated class notice and distribution plan or a notice that no stipulation can be agreed to within 21 days of the date of this Order. If the parties cannot agree to a class notice or distribution plan, the court further orders that the Plaintiffs shall file a proposed class notice and distribution plan within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order, the Defendant shall file any objections within fourteen (14) days of the Plaintiffs' filing, and the Plaintiffs shall file any reply within seven (7) days of the Defendant's filing. Because Dr. Oyer's opinions regarding commonality and predominance improperly invade the province of the court, the court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion as to these opinions. The Plaintiffs previously worked as exclusive agents for the Defendant between 1990 and 2023, and each signed an Exclusive Agency Agreement. The Defendant sells property, casualty, and life insurance in California through independent and exclusive agents. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1YJRU5 at no extra charge.[CC] ANDROS FOODS: French Representations "Misleading," Graham Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCY GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDROS FOODS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03561 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Bonne Maman brand preserves and jellies. Through its labeling, packaging, and advertising, the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that all Bonne Maman preserves and jellies are exclusively made in France. Specifically, the entire brand is named "Bonne Maman" - translating to, "good mommy" in French, and used colloquially to mean "Grandmother" or "Granny" - and each Bonne Maman product is enclosed with a "Vichy print" lid. Contrary to the French representations, and unbeknownst to consumers, the products are not exclusively made in France but are instead sometimes made in Belgium. The Defendant does not affirmatively indicate that only some of its preserves and jellies are made in France. Had the Plaintiff and other consumers known that the products are not exclusively made in France, they would not have purchased them or would have paid significantly less for them. As a result, the Plaintiff and other consumers have been deceived and have suffered economic injury, says the suit. Andros Foods USA, Inc. is a food manufacturer, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa T. Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 Email: lomoto@faruqilaw.com - and - Zachary M. Winkler, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5771 Email: zwinkler@faruqilaw.com ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Patterson Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- TORIANA PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02221-EFM-TJJ (D. Kan., April 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on October 6, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. is a grocery store operator based in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com BASEBALL AMERICA: Discloses Video Info to 3rd Party, Messina Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MESSINA, CLINT SCOLES, and CLIFTON DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BASEBALL AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00309 (M.D.N.C., April 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, federal and state wiretap laws, and invasions into consumers' privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to third parties the personally identifiable information (PII) and video information of its website users without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website tracking tools to collect users' data. The tools tracked the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website and reported their viewing history to third parties. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. Baseball America Inc. is a media company headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC P.O. Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com BLOOMWORKS WELLNESS: Matthews Sues Over Withholding Employees' Tips ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMWORKS WELLNESS, LLC and JENNIFER MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01305-EA (D. Md., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for withholding tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unjust enrichment. Mr. Matthews has been employed by the Defendants as a budtender since June 2023. Bloomworks Wellness, LLC is a company that sells a variety of cannabis products based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Sean J. Brennan, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 Email: mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com sb@mselaborlaw.com BODY CONTOUR: Bid to Stay Discovery in Privacy Lawsuit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lauren King of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle denied the request of Body Contour Centers, LLC, d/b/a/ Sono Bello to stay discovery until after the Court rules on its pending motion to dismiss all claims in the case styled as T.S., Plaintiff, v. BODY CONTOUR CENTRES, LLC d/b/a SONO BELLO, Case NO. 2:24-cv-01944-LK (W.D. Wash.). Sono Bello markets itself as "a leading provider of cosmetic surgery, operating clinics that offer various medical weight loss treatments, including laser liposuction, micro-laser liposuction, cellulite reduction procedures, and excess skin removal surgeries." All of its services are provided by "trained medical professionals." Plaintiff T.S. booked an appointment on Sono Bello's website on or around October 2023, for a consultation for a surgical weight loss procedure. She contends that when she did so, Sono Bello transmitted her online activity to Facebook through the Facebook Tracking Pixel, which causes an individual's browser "to secretly duplicate the communication with Defendant, transmitting it to Facebook's servers, alongside additional information that transcribed the communication's content and the individual's identity," including their Facebook ID, which is a unique identifier. T.S. contends that "she never gave Sono Bello or Facebook permission to disclose her personal health information" and "she did not consent to Facebook intercepting her data and monetising it through targeted advertising." T.S., who resides in California, brings this putative class action on behalf of "all California residents who have accessed and used Sono Bello's Website to book a consultation with Defendant." She brings claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. On January 31, 2025, Sono Bello filed a motion to dismiss all claims. While the motion to dismiss was pending, T.S. served requests for production and interrogatories on Sono Bello. Sono Bello contends that good cause exists to stay discovery because its pending motion to dismiss "can dispose of the entire case and can be decided without additional discovery." It notes that the "central question posed by the Motion is whether Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. No discovery is needed for the Court to answer this question." It further contends that "there is good cause for a stay because it would obviate the financial harm of substantial (and likely unnecessary) discovery practice." The Court recognized that the parties properly met and conferred as required, with Sono Bello's motion including a certification that "on March 17, 2025, its counsel met and conferred with T.S.'s counsel via video conference." The Court noted that "the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide an automatic stay of discovery if a motion to dismiss is filed: such motions are often unsuccessful and a stay could cause unnecessary and significant delays at the outset of the litigation." According to Judge King, "Although a court may relieve a party from the burdens of discovery while a dispositive motion is pending, this is the exception and not the rule." The Court acknowledged it "has discretion to stay discovery if defendant shows that it is entitled to a protective order under Rule 26(c) 'to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.'" The Court considered two factors in evaluating whether good cause exists to issue a stay: "First, the pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least on the issue to which discovery is directed. Second, the court must determine if the pending dispositive motion can be decided without additional discovery." Having taken a "preliminary peek" at Sono Bello's motion to dismiss, the Court said it was "not convinced at this stage that T.S. will be unable to state a claim for relief." This factor therefore weighed against a stay. The Court found that "the requested stay would preclude all discovery until after the Court rules on Sono Bello's motion to dismiss. Such a blanket stay of discovery would unnecessarily delay the litigation, particularly because courts typically grant leave to amend deficient allegations in this context." Additionally, the Court noted that "Sono Bello does not argue that the discovery requests are overly burdensome. Nor does it contend that a partial dismissal would reduce the need for at least some discovery." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zvva2f from PacerMonitor.com. BROOKLYN INDUSTRIES: Wills Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Industries, LLC. The case is styled as Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Industries, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02453 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn Industries -- https://brooklynindustries.com/ -- is a multi-faceted management company that services the lifestyle, F&B, and commercial development industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Lane Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SPENCER LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00607 (W.D. Tex., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around June 30, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Bunkhouse Management, LLC is a company that operates a series of hotels in Texas, Mexico, Kentucky, and California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BYTEDANCE INC: J.R. Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as J.R., A Minor, by and through his legal guardian, Sal Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00730 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03394-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. James E Cecchi, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. William J. Manory, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY AND AGNELLO P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and - Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com BYTEDANCE INC: White Suit Transferred to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael White, on behalf of K.L.W. and K.L.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bytedance Inc., Bytedance Ltd., Tiktok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00310 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03434-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ByteDance -- https://www.bytedance.com/en/ -- is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas Ryan Mayfield, Esq. GORI LAW FIRM PC 156 North Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 600-1166 Email: rmayfield@gorilaw.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Kahn Sues Over Disclosure of Patient Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN KAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03523 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Constitution, and California Invasion of Privacy Act, breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and common law invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing the private and confidential information of its patients to third parties, including Google LLC, without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said information. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of the private information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk to their private information, says the suit. California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com CORSO COMMERCE: Barz Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Abby Barz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CORSO COMMERCE, LLC and BRUMATE, INC., Case No. 30-2025-01460739-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00918. In the Complaint, Barz asserts eight causes of action: unfair competition; false advertising; violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; unjust enrichment; breach of contract; tortious interference with contract; violations of Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and violations of Colorado's Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Darren K. Cottriel, Esq. Cary D. Sullivan, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 1.949.851.3939 Facsimile: 1.949.553.7539 Email: dcottriel@jonesday.com carysullivan@jonesday.com COURTNEY JONES: Hall Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wendell Hall and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. Courtney Jones and Mr. Brown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00207-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All persons, CIVILLY DETAINED AND CIVILLY COMMITTED PERSONS (RESIDENTS) CIVILLY CONFINED AT FLORIDA CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER." The Plaintiff contends that the define class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are over 500 or more persons who have been denied reasonable safety or protection from future harm to their safety or health from physical assaults from other residents at FCCC with some coming each month. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y2wV5z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] CREDIT SESAME: Miller Sues Over Unmaintained Security Measures -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDIT SESAME, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-03854-VKD (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for their failure to implement and maintain reasonable security measures over personal information ("PI") entrusted to it--including, inter alia, Plaintiff's and Class Members' financial data, Social Security number ("SSN"), name, date of birth, and address. Unfortunately, Credit Sesame has instead damaged Plaintiff's and Class Members' financial wellness and likelihood of building good credit by failing to protect their sensitive data, including financial data and SSNs. Credit Sesame failed to take reasonable and adequate measures to secure the PI of Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals (the Class Members), in the course of designing, building, and maintaining the Credit Sesame application and website, and of collecting, transmitting, and storing Plaintiff's and Class Members' PI. Credit Sesame appears to have informed the state government of Vermont on April 14, 2025, that it had experienced a data breach impacting consumer data (the "Data Breach"). Although the state of Vermont requires notices informing consumers of data breaches to include what data was accessed or exfiltrated, the Sample Notice contains a placeholder in lieu of any description of the impacted data. Indeed, Credit Sesame has not communicated to consumers any additional information about the cybercriminals who breached consumers' data, which data was impacted, whether the data was exfiltrated or merely accessed, or any other relevant information consumers need in order to protect their data and financial well-being, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Credit Sesame user who entrusted his PI, including, inter alia, financial information and his SSN, to Credit Sesame. Credit Sesame is a financial and online banking service provider in California who presents itself as a service that empowers consumers to monitor and build their credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Clarissa Olivares, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 415-772-4700 Facsimile: 415-772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com colivares@kaplanfox.com DAIKIN COMFORT: Perez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daikin Comfort Technologies Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Daikin Comfort Technologies Distribution, Inc. d/b/a Dakin Comfort technologies Dist. Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006316 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Daikin Industries, Ltd. -- https://www.daikin.com/ -- is a leading innovator and provider of advanced, high-quality air conditioning solutions for residential, commercial, and industrial.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law DNC PARKS & RESORTS: Peraino Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Richard Peraino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT TENAYA, INC., a Delaware corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS RESERVATIONS, INC., a California corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., California corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT KINGS CANYON, INC., DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT SEQUOIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; DNC PARKS & RESORTS FISH CAMP LODGING, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES PARKS & RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INCORPORATED; a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU016480C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on May 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01130-JES-DEB. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure To Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure To Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Failure to Produce Requested Employment Records; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com bpelliconi@seyfarth.com DOE RUN RESOURCES: Grandstaff Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Grandstaff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Doe Run Resources Corp. d/b/a The Doe Run Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-00630 (E.D. Mo., May 2, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines, while on Defendant's premises. Additionally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary safety, production, and retention bonuses that the Defendant fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an underground miner from April 2018 to April 2024, The Defendant has operated for nearly 160 years as a mining and metal production company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 425-6445 Facsimile (713) 888-535-9271 Email: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal DSCC LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ BETANCO and RAFAEL QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DSCC, LLC d/b/a David Stern Construction, and CHARLIE ATTAR, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00118-AW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorize notice until and including May 16, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective and Authorize Notice in this matter. The Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize Notice is due on May 2, 2025. DSCC is a provider of comprehensive interior and exterior services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4RQiT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz., Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Adi Amit, Esq. ADI AMIT, P.A. 101 Centre 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com EIDP INC: Caporale Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, et al., v. EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs Candy Caporale, Bruce Davis, Gene Sullenberger, and Christine Wootten, have filed this lawsuit in a representative capacity, seeking authorization to represent over 1,600 individuals who live, or have lived, and own or have owned residential property, in or near the Town of Blades, Sussex County, Delaware, all of whom have suffered concrete injury due to exposure to contaminated groundwater, which is the sole source of the drinking water and domestic potable water flowing to these residences, from both the public water system and from private wells. For many years, the Plaintiffs have been unknowingly exposed to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) at concentrations hazardous to their health. The Plaintiffs' property values have been damaged due to the presence of PFCs in their drinking water and the resulting stigma associated with the Town of Blades contaminated municipal and private water supplies. The Plaintiffs seek recovery from Defendants, jointly and severally, for personal injuries, property damage, and diminution in property value caused by the presence PFOA and PFOS in the drinking water wells. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify two separate classes, pursuant to Fed. R. Fed. P. 23(b)(3), to permit the just and efficient litigation of Count III of the Third Amended Complaint, sounding in negligence, against all Defendants. The first class action would be limited to litigation of liability issues pertaining to personal injury (with the quantification of damages, if Defendants are found liable, subsequently handled on an individualized basis). The second class action would incorporate the liability findings (there would be no need for a separate trial) and have a class resolution of the residential property damage caused by the Defendants' conduct, which is readily calculable on a class-wide basis (yielding a percentage quantification of how much the PFOA and PFOS contamination devalued property in this area, which then could be applied on an individualized basis to calculate the precise damages suffered by each propertyowning class member). EIDP operates as a agricultural chemical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iCzMEg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot Rivera, Esq. Veronica Vazquez Santiago, Esq. Gabriel M. Vazquez, Esq. NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com vvazquez@nsprlaw.com gvazquez@nsprlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq. David T. Crumplar, Esq. Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle Suite 301 New Castle DE 19720-2418 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: tom@jcdelaw davy@jcdelaw.com ELLIS HOSPITAL: Court Dismisses Opt-in Plaintiffs in Davella ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DAVELLA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELLIS HOSPITAL, INC., doing business as Ellis Medicine, Case No. 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting motions to dismiss any opt-in Plaintiffs whose claims are barred by the statute of limitations and those who have failed to produce verified responses to the Defendant's discovery demands. The Court further entered an order that the opt-in Plaintiffs are removed from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective. On her third amended complaint, the Plaintiff Denise Davella, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by failing to pay full compensation. On Aug. 21, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification. Ellis Hospital provides emergency, inpatient medical/surgical and psychiatric care. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WzvtuL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Billok, Esq. Eric M. O'Bryan, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 268 Broadway, Suite 104 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gutman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ember Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Gutman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ember Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02436 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ember -- https://ember.com/ -- offers patented temperature-controlled mugs, travel mugs, tumblers & baby bottle systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Phone: (203) 653-2250 Fax: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com EMERALD OAK APARTMENTS: Mastriano Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emerald Oak Apartments, LLC. The case is styled as Kate Mastriano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Emerald Oak Apartments, LLC, Case No. 2025CA001960SC (Fla. Cty. Ct., Sarasota Cty., April 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other - Circuit." Emerald Oak Apartments offers 3 bedroom rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. 1000 Brickell Ave., Suite 715 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 786-843-1933 Email: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com ENDUE INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MARTINEZ, parent and natural guardian of D.M., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDUE, INC. d/b/a ENDUE SOFTWARE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00183-JAW (D. Me., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on approximately February 16, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Endue, Inc., doing business as Endue Software, is a healthcare technology firm based in Portland, Maine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Edward Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 Email: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Lewis Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise W. Flanagan entered an order: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff is directed to file, within five days of the date of this order, her amended complaint, as proposed, except with respect to the class definitions, which must be modified as set forth below. 2. The Defendant's motion for reconsideration and in the alternative for clarification is granted in part and denied in part. The court grants the motion in that part where the defendant seeks a modification of the class definitions, and in that alternative part where the defendant seeks clarification. The class definitions are modified as follows: (1) Notice of Lien Class: "All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Lien delivered to the Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter." (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: "All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose delivered to the Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter." The Plaintiff commenced this consumer protection action in Wake County Superior Court, April 14, 2022, asserting putative class action claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, based upon allegedly improper debt collection practices by defendant in connection with delinquent homeowners association dues payments. Equity Experts offers community association recovery solutions, collection technology and legal services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lV4c0V at no extra charge.[CC] EUROSTAR INC: Faces Manning Suit Over Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANI MANNING, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUROSTAR, INC. D/B/A WSS, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03684 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2025) is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. The Defendant violated the law by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Eurostar, Inc., d/b/a WSS, operates as a footwear retailer with its headquarters located in Gardena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com EVOQUA WATER: Correa Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Correa, an individual, an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09650 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03956. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged claims--including, but not limited to, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to pay waiting time penalties; failure to provide and maintain accurate and compliant wage records; and violations of California's unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Braham, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Phone: (310) 277-4110 Email: cbraham@mwe.com - and - Connor McCoy, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 415 Mission St., Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105-2616 Phone: (628) 218-3800 Email: cmccoy@mwe.com FCA US: Seeks to Dismiss Graves's Amended Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF GRAVES, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:24-cv-12968-JEL-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint and dismissing or striking certain allegations. Pursuant to LR 7.1, counsel for FCA, Jeffrey M. Sniadanko, contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel Dennis A. Lienhardt, via telephone on March 24, 2025, requesting personal consultation in an effort to obtain Plaintiffs’ concurrence to the relief sought in this Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) prior to FCA’s filing deadline, in an effort to avoid court intervention. Counsel for FCA and Plaintiffs subsequently conferred in good faith during that telephone call, during which time counsel for FCA generally explained to Plaintiffs’ counsel Dennis A. Lienhardt, the nature and bases for dismissal asserted in FCA’s Motion. Plaintiffs declined to provide their concurrence to FCA’s Motion and the relief sought herein. Citing 13 instances, the Plaintiffs allege that all of the Jeep vehicles are at risk of a fire in the under-hood engine compartment and that risk is caused by a purported defect in the vehicles' power steering pump electrical connector. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZcWlBU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Daniel T. Graham, Esq. Jeffrey M. Sniadanko, Esq. Paul C. Do, Esq. Jonathan Roffe, Esq. Magy E. Shenouda, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 130 E. Randolph Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 985-5945 Facsimile: (312) 985-5954 E-mail: dgraham@clarkhill.com jsniadanko@clarkhill.com pdo@clarkhill.com jroffe@clarkhill.com mshenouda@clarkhill.com FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 29, 2025, will move the Court to: -- certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), -- appoint Mr. Purcell as Class Representative, and -- appoint Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP ("GSA") and DeBlase Brown Eyerly LLP ("DBE") as Co-Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff moves to certify the following Class: "All persons or entities in California that purchased or renewed a Masterpiece homeowners' insurance policy issued by the Defendant on or after Jan. 10, 2017, excluding insurance policies covering more than one risk unit." The Plaintiff alleges he and other class members entered into valid and enforceable written contracts with Federal when they either purchased or renewed their "Masterpiece" homeowners insurance policies, thereby accepting the terms presented in the policy documents that Federal sends to insureds. Each policy included a "Premium Discount Summary" sheet ("PDS") containing provisions that obligated Federal, to discount the price of the class member's undiscounted premium (as it is represented in their policy documents ("PDS Undiscounted Premium")) by specific percentages enumerated in each class member's PDS. Federal offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and property insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BZ2q2v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick DeBlase, Esq. Eric Brown, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Aileen Huang, Esq. DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP 680 S. Santa Fe Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (310) 575-9955 Facsimile: (310) 575-9919 - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00252-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting request to protect documents or information designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential," -- granting leave to file under seal Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 in support of Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The exhibits proposed to be filed under seal are as follows: Exhibit 6: Transcript of the Deposition of Chad Coffman (Excerpts). Exhibit 7: Transcript of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff Nebraska Investment Council (Excerpts). Exhibit 8: Apr. 22, 25 Letter from C. Wong to N. Manningham. The Defendants propose that these documents remain under seal for the duration of the case, subject to any further order of the court, and designates undersigned counsel (whose mailing address, email address, and telephone number are in the signature block below) as the person authorized to retrieve the sealed materials pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(b). A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BXbMQq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Hille R. Sheppard, Esq. John M. Skakun III, Esq. Caroline A. Wong, Esq. Takayuki Ono, Esq. Ian M. Ross, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: hsheppard@sidley.com jskakun@sidley.com caroline.wong@sidley.com tono@sidley.com iross@sidley.com - and - R. Eric Bilik, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-2685 Facsimile: (904) 360 6304 E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com FILTERBABY LLC: Love Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN LOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FILTERBABY LLC and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03534 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of automatically renewing consumers' subscriptions without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant charges consumers without providing information on how to cancel the subscription. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks to obtain actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, and other appropriate relief as a result of these violations. FilterBaby LLC is a provider of filter solutions, with its principal place of business in Gaithersburg, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com GEICO: Fischer's Reply to Opposition Due June 11 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fischer, et al., v. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), Case No. 2:23-cv-02848 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order amending the remaining deadlines for the motion for class certification as follows: -- Defendant's opposition by May 12, 2025 -- Plaintiffs' reply by June 11, 2025 -- All other deadlines approved on Sept. 10, 2024, remain in effect. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). GEICO is a US-based insurance company, with a history of targeting U.S. government employees and military personnel.[CC] GOLDCO DIRECT: Summerton Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN SUMMERTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDCO DIRECT LLC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00238-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons in the United States who, during the four years prior to the filing of this case (1) received more than one text message from the Defendant during any 12-month period; (2) which was transmitted by the Defendant utilizing the Call Loop, Inc., texting software; (3) after requesting to not receive text messages from the Defendant by responding with a "stop" or "unsubscribe" request; (4) whose number was listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry when the messages were received; and (5) who did not re-opt in to receive text messages prior to receipt of the text messages." There are approximately 19,280 Class Members that received approximately 92,754 unwanted text messages from Defendant in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, all individuals who make timely election to be excluded, and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. As outlined in the attached brief in support of this motion, the proposed Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). Goldco is a gold and silver provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ACB6Ki at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 905-6911 E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com GOODRX INC: AIDS Healthcare Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as AIDS Healthcare Foundation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. GoodRx, Inc., GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts Holding Company, Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03380 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on May 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03018-MSM-LDA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: mclark@ahdootwolfson.com GROW SMART: Non-Expert Discovery in Reyes Class Suit Due Dec. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA REYES, v. GROW SMART LABOR, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order modifying scheduling order as follows: a. Pre-Certification Non-Expert Discovery: December 29, 2025 b. Pre-Certification Expert Discovery: March 26, 2026 c. Pre-Certification Expert Disclosure: December 29, 2025; d. Pre-Certification Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: February 13, 2026; and e. Certification Motion Filing: May 14, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=thmrH3 at no extra charge.[CC] HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing in McRee Extended to June 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MCREE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00128-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered an order granting in part the Joint Motion to Temporarily Stay Proceedings -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a class certification motion is extended through and including June 2, 2025. -- All other provisions of the Pretrial Order remain in effect. On April 18, 2025, the parties filed the instant Motion, now requesting that this matter be temporarily stayed so that they can focus on preparing for mediation, which they have currently scheduled for July 16, 2025. The parties are free to conduct mediation at any time prior to the Dec. 19, 2025, deadline. Likewise, the parties' interest in focusing their attention on settlement discussions is understandable. On Sept. 16, 2024, the parties were directed to conduct an Initial Attorneys’ Conference within 14 days and to file a report within 7 days thereafter. However, Hurricane Helene hit Western North Carolina on September 26-27, 2024, causing extensive damage throughout the region. On October 11, 2024, the parties moved for a stay and requested a status conference. HCA is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in 1968. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p8VMqT at no extra charge.[CC] HERTZ CORPORATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting as modified stipulation to extend class certification deadlines. -- Motion for Class Certification due June 9, 2025 -- Opposition due by July 7, 2025 -- Reply due by July 21, 2025 -- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification set for Aug. 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco. The nature of suit states labor litigation. Hertz is an American car rental company.[CC] HESS CORP: Response to Wagner Class Cert Bid Due May 19 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of the Hess Corporation Employees' Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated, v. HESS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Sley Rix entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs motion for class certification. It is therefore ordered that the defendant shall file a response to the motion for class certification by May 19, 2025. Any response filed on or before May 19, 2025, shall be deemed timely. Hess is an American global independent energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2d6NE5 at no extra charge.[CC] HLB90067 INC: Miller Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HLB90067, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00369 (W.D.N.Y., April 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.hauslabs.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. HLB90067, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HOME DEPOT USA: Obomanu Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Tamunomim Obomanu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 25CV281 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., April 17, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper compensation. The Defendant required the Plaintiff and all other hourly, non-exempt employees at its Connecticut and Massachusetts Distribution Centers (the "Class") "to be on its premises" to walk to and from the time clocks before and after their paid shifts. Defendant arranged its Distribution Centers so that the time clocks are located deep within the buildings, not near the entrances, requiring Plaintiff and the Class to incur daily unpaid walking time. As a result of this practice, Defendant unlawfully retained hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages it should have paid to Plaintiff and the Class for the time it required them to be on its premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly Associate at its Westfield, Massachusetts Distribution Center from January 11, 2024 until February 17, 2025. The Defendant is a national retail corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. Thomas J. Durkin, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 750 Main Street, Suite 904 Hanford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rguers@hayberlawfirm.com tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Leverman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell International Inc. The case is styled as Peter Leverman, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 2025CUOE042651 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., April 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited - Other Employment." Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/us/en -- is a worldwide technology and manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92108-3838 Phone: 619-693-4007 Fax: 619-350-6855 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Allen Due June 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00896 (W.D.N.C., Filed Oct. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order on motion for extension of time: -- Class certification brief due by: June 2, 2025 -- Plaintiff's expert reports due by: Aug. 29, 2025 -- Defendant's expert reports due by: Sept. 26, 2025 -- Rebuttals due by: Oct. 24, 2025 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability.[CC] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Tow Rolling Cooler "Defective," Riffle Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ KRISTEN RIFFLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00495-UNA (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violations of state consumer fraud acts and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of defective Igloo 90 Qt. Flip & Tow Rolling Cooler. According to the complaint, the Cooler's tow handle can pinch consumers' fingertips against it, posing fingertip amputation and crushing hazards. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, says the suit. Igloo Products Corp. is a manufacturer of ice chests, drink containers, and supporting accessories based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com J. J. F. MANAGEMENT: Norwood Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. J. F. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as Alex Norwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. J. J. F. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a FITZGERALD AUTO MALLS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01399 (D. Md., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. J. J. F. Management Services, Inc. doing business as Fitzgerald Auto Mall is a family owned and operated auto dealership that was founded in 1966, with its first location opening in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com JOSE PLEHN-DUJOWICH: Hu Suit transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Qiuzi Hu, Edwin Ramirez, Ivan Ronceria, Wenzhi Fei, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOSE PLEHN-DUJOWICH also known as: JOSE M. PLEHN, BIZQUALIFY LLC, POWERLYTICS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01791 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-mc-00022-UJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous. Jose Plehn Dujowich is the CEO, Chief Data Officer, and Founder of BrightQuery (BQ) and BQ AI.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karin M. Sweigart, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 433-1700 Email: ksweigart@dhillonlaw.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bird Files Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Bird, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01395 (D. Md., May 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Kelly & Associates -- https://www.officialkellybenefits.com/ -- is an employee benefits consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (212) 946-9305 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tpacheco@milberg.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Gale Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLYN GALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., dba KELLY BENEFITS, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-01304-AAQ (D. Md., April 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 12, 2024, and December 17, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc., doing business as Kelly Benefits, is an insurance broker, headquartered in Sparks, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane O. King, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DUANE O. KING, PC 803 W. Broad St., Suite 210 Falls Church, VA 22046 Telephone: (202) 331-1963 Email: dking@dkinglaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Hod Balks at Unfair Use of Lie Detector Tests --------------------------------------------------------------- ADI HOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Defendant, Case No. ______ (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., April 28, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to redress Defendant's violations of Mass. Gen. Laws. The state law requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. Despite this abundantly clear mandate, the Defendant does not provide such written notice of rights in their applications for jobs in Massachusetts. On its website careers.keurigdrpepper.com, the Defendant encourages job seekers to apply online for jobs in Massachusetts. Its online job application says nothing about lie detectors or otherwise informs job applicants of their rights under the law, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals defined as all persons who applied for a Massachusetts-based position of employment with Defendant. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 8th Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (917) 656-0569 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL: Cook Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIANNE COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03374 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on November 9, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Legends International, LLC is a provider of operation services for stadiums and entertainment venues based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCS. LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4900 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com LELAND DUDEK: Deadlines Stayed Pending Class Cert Resolution ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., v. LELAND DUDEK ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to vacate scheduling order. The Court further orders that the scheduling order entered on April 16, 2025 is vacated; and that all deadlines are stayed until the resolution of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Leland is an American public servant who is serving as the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w2EBFz at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY HOME GUARD: Thomas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Home Guard LLC. The case is styled as Jordan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Liberty Home Guard LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22012-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Liberty Home Guard -- https://www.libertyhomeguard.com/ -- is a New York City-based direct seller of home warranty plans.[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@sflinjuryattorneys.com LIQUID TRANSPORT: Hunt Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TERRELL HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIQUID TRANSPORT CORP, LIQUID TRANSPORT LLC, DANA TRANSPORT, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10101, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 22, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03558 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide adequate wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business expenses, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to timely pay wages upon separation, and unfair competition. Liquid Transport Corp is a provider of transportation services doing business in California. Liquid Transport LLC is a provider of transportation services doing business in California. Dana Transport, Inc. is a provider of transportation services doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. Youngki Sohn, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com ysohn@scopelitis.com LONG BEACH, CA: Russo Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Stephen Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, a California public entity, Case No. 25STCV11516 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of himself and all other individuals ("Class Members") who had their personally identifiable information and protected health information--including but not limited to names, dates of birth, credit card information, debit card information, Social Security numbers, driver's license information, passport information, taxpayer identification number, biometric data, and medical data (collectively, "Personal and Medical Information")--disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's systems that Defendant discovered on November 14, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Personal and Medical Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed and exfiltrated by cybercriminals causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, and unauthorized use of their Personal and Medical Information. The Defendant failed to adequately protect, and failed even to encrypt, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal and Medical Information. This unencrypted Personal and Medical Information was compromised due to Defendant's acts and/or omissions and the utter failure to protect Personal and Medical Information in its possession. Hackers obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal and Medical Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The risk to these individuals will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to provide his Personal and Medical Information. The Defendant is a chartered city in Los Angeles County and is the second most populous city in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Johnson Seeks Production of Contact Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anna Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Longview Medical Center, L.P. d/b/a Longview Regional Medical Center, Case No. 6:24-cv-00215-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Defendant to produce requested contact information for the putative collective action members, as is routine in Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) cases, and for a 60-day opt-in period. All evidence points to a single conclusion: The Plaintiff has demonstrated her entitlement to send notice to collective action members defined as follows: "All current and former hourly-paid direct patient care employees, including nurses and patient care techs for the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and forward employed at Longview Medical Center, L.P. d/b/a Longview Regional Medical Center who did not receive fully relieved meal breaks who may be owed overtime pay under the FLSA for workweeks in which they worked more than 40 hours per week including any deducted meal breaks." Each of these employees was subject to interruptions during their meal breaks due to the nature of their work, and all have uncompensated meal periods potentially resulting in unpaid overtime. Accordingly, those claims should proceed collectively. Longview is a hospital operating in Longview, Texas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRwwO8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Hill Seeks Conditional Cert of Opt-in Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGRET HILL; and TRENITA WILSON, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03484-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 25, 2025, will move the Court for an order Conditionally Certifying an "Opt-In" Collective Action, Under section 16(B) of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Purpose of Providing Notice to Prospective Collective Action Members. The action to recover back overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et. seq. ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs are seeking to recover liquidated damages based on Defendant's failure to timely compensate Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members with their overtime compensation due in the form of banked overtime CTO. As permitted by FLSA Section 216(b), Plaintiffs brought this case as a "collective action," which allows them to bring this case on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated. In a collective action under the FLSA, each person must file an affirmative statement of her or his consent to join the lawsuit to be a plaintiff. Plaintiffs seek an Order authorizing the approval and distribution of a Notice and a Consent to Join Action/Opt-In Form to all individuals as described above. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the supporting declarations and exhibits filed concurrently herewith, all pleadings and documents on file, and upon such evidence and arguments as may properly come before the Court at the time of the hearing. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4ZnEN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew F. Archbold, Esq. David D. Deason, Esq. DEASON & ARCHBOLD 17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (949) 794-9560 E-mail: matthew@yourlaborlawyers.com david@yourlaborlawyers.com LUCK GROVE: Gutierrez Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Gutierrez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LUCK GROVE CONSTRUCTION INC. and LUCK GROVE TELECOM INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00552-ECC-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025), is brought to recover agreed upon wages, overtime compensation, unlawful deductions, and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers. Despite being non-exempt employees, the Defendant has failed to properly pay Non-Exempt Laborers overtime compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. Specifically, the Defendant compensated Plaintiff at his regular hourly rate for some of the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant also did not factor in all compensation it paid Non-Exempt Laborers when calculating the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating and paying overtime. In addition to failing to pay overtime pay, the Defendant also paid the Plaintiff and Non-Exempt Laborers less than the number of hours they worked by shaving time off their timesheets. As a result, the Defendant has significantly underpaid Non-Exempt Laborers for straight time hours and overtime hours worked. The Defendants also maintained a policy and practice whereby they take unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff and Non-Exempt Laborers' compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a from January 9, 2023 until September 12, 2023. Luck Grove is a telecommunications and utilities engineering and construction company aimed at connecting businesses and communities with fast, reliable, and efficient communications services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. David J. Sack, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIVIAN SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order regarding plaintiff’s first amended complaint and case schedule. Deadline or Hearing New Date Motion for Class Certification Filing: Dec. 8, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Dec. 22, 2025 Certification: Reply to Opposition to Motion for Dec. 29, 2025 Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 21, 2026 Discovery Cutoff: April 21, 2026 Dispositive Motions heard by: July 15, 2026 Marriott is a multinational hospitality company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands, including hotels, residential properties, and timeshares. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qbl5Zh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jesse S. Chen, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (404) 782-9821 E-mail: alex@wtlaw.com MARS PETCARE US: Attias Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mars Petcare US, Inc. The case is styled as Helene Attias, Trisha Nadeau, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00507 (M.D. Tenn., May 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Mars Petcare -- https://www.mars.com/ -- is a leading provider of high quality, science-backed nutrition and therapeutic health products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Str., Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7000 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER P. O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Fax: (865) 354-4442 Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com MCLANE COMPANY: McGowan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARIS MCGOWAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MCLANE COMPANY, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE FOODSERVICE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a North Carolina corporation; MCLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE INTERSTATE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE/SUNEAST, INC., a Texas corporation; MCLANE/WESTERN, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-00689-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move ex parte for an Order to extend her time to file the motion for class certification and all related deadlines, including the Defendants' deadline to file their opposition, and the Plaintiff's reply thereto. The Plaintiff seeks to: 1. Extend the time within which she needs to file her Motion for Class Certification from April 29, 2025 to July 7, 2025; 2. Extend the time for the Defendants' to file their opposition thereto from June 10, 2025 to Aug. 18, 2025; 3. Extend the time for the Plaintiff to file her reply thereto from July 8, 2025 to Sept. 15, 2025. On June 19, 2024, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendants, which consisted of Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). On Feb. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to continue the original Feb. 28, 2025 filing deadline in light of the Feb. 28, 2025 Motion to Compel hearing. McLane Company provides grocery and foodservice supply chain solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=58lEP3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com sjkim@bakerlaw.com MDL 2992: Court Stays Suit Pending Supreme Court Review ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to stay pending supreme court review: -- The Court grants Defendant's motion to stay pending Supreme Court review as it relates to class certification and any subsequent dispositive motion practice. -- The Court denies the Defendant's motion to stay as it concerns expert discovery which shall continue until completion on May 16, 2025, and denies a stay as to any outstanding or subsequent discovery disputes. The Court finds that Class Plaintiffs have not demonstrated hardship by a short, three-month stay. Three months should not impact witness memories or limit the ability to reach class members to inform them of their rights. Further, through the preliminary injunction and the Remediation Plan, injured class members have received direct compensation, and if sought and approved, consequential damages; therefore, the economic vulnerabilities raised by Class Plaintiffs are not as paramount as they claim This multidistrict litigation (MDL) arises from Class Action Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and related causes of action during its administration of the electronic benefits payment system for California's Employment Development Department during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bank of America operates as a financial holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zMtLRv at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3144: 6 Suits Consolidated in TikTok Minor Privacy Row ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two actions from the U.S. District Court for Central District of California and one each from the Northern District of California, Northern District of Florida, Western District of Missouri and the District of New Jersey, all to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge George H. Wu, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Tiktok, Inc., Minor Privacy Litigation," MDL No. 3144. Plaintiff in class action 3:24−08051 moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, to include the actions in MDL No. 3047, "In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation." Defendants and plaintiffs in the consolidated Central District of California actions do not oppose centralization in said district. Plaintiffs in all actions allege that TikTok failed to disclose that it collects and sells the personal information of minor children without their or their parents' notice, knowledge, or consent, in violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998(COPPA) and Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (the COPPA rule). The panel ruled that the Central District of California is the most appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Two of the TikTok defendants are headquartered in the district, and it is undisputed that relevant documents and witnesses will be found there. The government action, which overlaps considerably with the actions before the Panel, was filed in this district, it added. A full-text copy of the court's April 3, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3144-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf MDL 3145: Panel Denies Transfer of 2 Suits to Bodycam Antitrust Row ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denies the transfer of Case Nos. 2:24−01869 and 3:23−07182, from U.S. District Courts for District of Arizona and District of New Jersey, respectively, to the latter district, for centralization in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Axon Enterprise, Inc., Body-Worn Camera and Digital Evidence Management Systems Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3145. The panel said that though the actions unquestionably share common factual allegations concerning Axon's alleged monopolization of the market for body-worn camera (BWC) systems and digital evidence management systems, the actions present significant differences that likely will diminish the potential efficiencies from centralizing these two cases. For example, the 3:23−07182 action is a putative nationwide class action on behalf of purchasers of Axon BWC systems, which likely will involve class certification discovery and motions irrelevant to case 2:24−01869, an individual competitor action. Moreover, the parties have not yet seriously pursued informal coordination, which provides a practicable alternative to formal centralization. Common defendant Axon has the same counsel in both actions and supports informal coordination. Safariland - an alleged co-conspirator in both actions - also has the same counsel in both actions. Given the minimal number of involved counsel and actions, informal coordination of discovery and pretrial motions is practicable and preferable to centralization, rules the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 1, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3145-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-25.pdf MILANNI'S LLC: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Lozano Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARYI LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILANNI'S LLC, d/b/a IL PONTE VECCHIO, and MILTON C. DUARTE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21856 (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a restaurant employee from June 01, 2024, to February 05, 2025. Milanni's LLC, doing business as Il Ponte Vecchio, is an Italian restaurant/pizzeria owner and operator, located in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Long Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC. and MURPHY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a ERLANGER WESTERN CAROLINA HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00135 (E.D. Tenn., April 28, 2025) is a class action arising out of the public exposure of the confidential, personally identifying information and protected health information of Defendants Erlanger Health's current and former patients, including of Plaintiff and the Class Members, which was in Defendants' possession during a cyberattack on NRS' systems beginning on or around July 2024. According to the complaint, the data breach resulted from Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for employment. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct since the private information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendants seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) third-party beneficiary; and (iv) unjust enrichment. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc. is a collection agency with operating facilities located across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com NTH DEGREE: Faces Hardin Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JULIE HARDIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NTH DEGREE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02349-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The private information compromised in the data breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target private information for its value to identity thieves, says the suit. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the private information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Nth Degree Inc. provides Event Marketing and Management services. The Company manages trade shows, corporate events, retail installations, experiential activations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Peck Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Strock Peck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC, d/b/a ONSITE WOMEN'S HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-11213 (D. Mass., May 2, 2025), is brought against Onsite for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). Onsite failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Onsite to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data Breach") in the future. Onsite has disclosed that in or around October 2024, "an unauthorized actor gained access to the individual's email account." Onsite further disclosed that a "vendor's review concluded on February 21, 2025 and revealed that the compromised email included specific health-related information about patients." As a medical provider and business providing electronic health record storage services to affiliates that collect and store PII and PHI, Onsite knowingly obtained sensitive PII and PHI and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII and PHI to Onsite if they had known that Onsite would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or PHI were exposed in the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Onsite's data security policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received services from Onsite and its "partner," Axia Women's Health. Onsite describes itself as "the leading provider of in-office breast health and imaging services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 439-6730 Fax: (617) 951-3954 Email: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 274-9420 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com ORIGIN MATERIALS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Soto Due April 3, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soto v. Origin Materials, Inc. et al. (re ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Shubb entered a pretrial scheduling order as follows: The parties agreed to serve the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before April 25, 2025. All discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by Nov. 16, 2026. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) not later than Nov. 16, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before April 3, 2026. The Defendants' opposition to class certification shall be filed on or before May 15, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before June 5, 2026. All other motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Dec. 14, 2026. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 8, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5. The jury trial is set for May 11, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. The parties estimate that the trial will last 21 days. Origin Materials, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a carbon-negative materials company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jJJPJx at no extra charge.[CC] PAUL HESSE: Clas Cert Hearing in White Suit Set for July 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WHITE, JANARA MUSGRAVE, and LANDON PROUDFIT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HON. PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 26th Judicial District, and HON. DAVID HALLEY, in his official capacity as Special District Judge in the Canadian County District Court, Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered an order setting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for hearing on July 14, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated May 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rk3BM6 at no extra charge.[CC] PENSKE LOGISTICS: Nelson Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY NELSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion and certifying the Class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3); appointing Plaintiff Terry Nelson as the Class representative; and appointing Justin Hewgill of Hewgill Cobb & Lockard, APC and Ben Travis of Ben Travis Law, APC as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3): "All Non-Exempt current and former employees of the Defendant who were employed at a warehouse in California from April 7, 2022 through the date of final disposition of this action." Excluded from the Class are any of the Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest. Penske operates distribution warehouses throughout the State of California. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zGOz4K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP 1001 Wilshire Blvd. 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 394-3804 E-mail: jhewgill@EJLGlaw.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Rejects Bid to Remand Angulo Case ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an order denying these motions in the case, Caroline Angulo et al. v. Providence Health & Services Washington et al., Case No. 4:25-CV-05029-SAB (E.D. Wash.): -- Defendant Providence's Motion to Stay; an -- Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Remand. The motions were considered without oral argument. The case originated as a putative class action filed in King County Superior Court on May 13, 2022. Plaintiffs brought claims including criminal profiteering under Washington Revised Code Sections 9A.82.100 and 9A.82.080, with predicate acts of false health care claims under Section 48.80.030, money laundering under Section 9A.83.020, and theft by deception under Section 9A.56.030. Plaintiffs also alleged negligence and negligent misrepresentation under common law and Section 70.41.210, along with medical negligence under Sections 7.70 and 4.24. Defendants removed the case to federal court on June 30, 2022, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The matter was subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of Washington on March 19, 2025, due to related pending matters and considerations of judicial economy. Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended Complaint on November 15, 2024, seeking to certify two classes: -- the Providence Class consisting of approximately 1,750 surgical patients subject to an RVU compensation scheme; and -- the MultiCare Class consisting of approximately 475 surgical patients treated by Dr. Dreyer during his employment at MultiCare Health Systems. Regarding Defendant Providence's Motion to Stay, the Court applied the standard established in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), requiring a showing of hardship or inequity if the case proceeds, and considered the competing interests factors from CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962). Defendant sought a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Labcorp v. Davis, 2025 WL 288305 (Jan. 24, 2025), which addresses class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court denied the motion, finding it premature since no class certification motion was currently pending before the Court. Meanwhile, the Court denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion to remand the case to state court. The Court examined jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) and CAFA requirements. The Court determined that Defendants properly established federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), noting the presence of minimal diversity between parties, class sizes exceeding 100 members, and potential damages well above the $5 million threshold when considering the prior $22.7 million settlement in March 2022 in a qui tam False Claims Act action between Providence, the United States, and the State of Washington. About $10.4 million of that amount was earmarked as restitution, to resolve allegations that the hospital fraudulently billed federal and state health care programs for surgeries performed by Drs. Dreyer and Elskens at Providence St. Mary Medical Center in Walla Walla, Washington. Both doctors resigned in the face of Washington Department of Health administrative investigations. The Court also addressed the inclusion of John/Jane Does 1-10 as Defendants. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent in Craig v. United States, 413 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1969) and local rules, the Court dismissed these parties without prejudice, finding no unusual circumstances justifying "Doe pleading" in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y1AN4s from PacerMonitor.com. RARE BEAUTY: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Miller Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RARE BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00367 (W.D.N.Y., April 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.rarebeauty.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rare Beauty, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ROCKY BRANDS: Casillas Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MILTITA CASILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCKY BRANDS, INC., Case No. 25STCV08413, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 23, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03575 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of California False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Rocky Brands, Inc. is a footwear manufacturer doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Bret R. Henry, Esq. YOKA SMITH, LLP 445 South Figueroa St., 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 427-2300 Facsimile: (213) 427-2330 Email: bhenry@yokasmith.com - and - David S. Bloomfield, Jr., Esq. PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 41 South High Street, 29th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 227-2169 Facsimile: (614) 227-2100 Email: dbloomfield@porterwright.com - and - McDaniel Kelly, Esq. Lauren Konrai-Mori, Esq. PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 443-9000 Facsimile: (216) 443-9011 Email: mkelly@porterwright.com lkonraimori@porterwright.com SETPOINT INTEGRATED: Kubala Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ TED KUBALA, JR., individually and for others similarly situated v. SETPOINT INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00108 (S.D. Tex., April 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Kubala and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Setpoint does not pay Kubala 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 a workweek. Instead, Setpoint pays Kubala and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. Plaintiff Kubala was employed by the Defendant as a pressure relief valve technician I since approximately August 2023. Setpoint Integrated Solutions, Inc. provides flow control equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SODEXO INC: Faces Snyder Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- WINSTON SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01322-RDB (D. Md., April 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach in March 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Sodexo, Inc. is a global managed contract services organization based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@maonllp.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com TD BANK: Charges Fees for Paper Billing Statements, Hastings Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA HASTINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02336 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2025) arises out of TD Bank's policy and practice of charging its New York customers a fee to receive their account billing statements in paper form via United States mail in violation of the New York General Business Law. The complaint says that TD Bank charges a monthly fee in order for its customers, including Plaintiff, to receive a paper billing statement in direct violation of the law. According to TD Bank's Fee Schedule, this fee is $3 for each paper statement per statement cycle for general banking. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated New Yorkers, and seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, and injunctive relief. TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank and subsidiary of the Canadian multinational Toronto-Dominion Bank. TD is headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Ave of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com TRAP YOUR MOLES: Haught Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON HAUGHT and SONNY DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRAP YOUR MOLES LLC, DOO DOO DOCTOR LLC, and MATT TACKETT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00270-SJD (S.D. Ohio, April 28, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Named Plaintiffs assert common law claims for unjust enrichment based on Defendants' misclassification of themselves and those similarly situated as "independent contractors." As a result of this misclassification, Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have been denied the rights and protections afforded to employees under state and federal law, including employer-provided workers' compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, and overtime pay, says the suit. Plaintiff Haught was employed with Defendants as a pet waste removal worker from approximately July 2023 until approximately September 2024 while Plaintiff Davidson was employed with Defendants as a mole trapper from approximately June 2022 until approximately June 2023. Trap Your Moles LLC is a mole removal service provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com UNITED WHOLESALE: Improperly Uses Forfeited Plan Assets, Lapko Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTOPHER I. LAPKO, ALAN P. TUCSOK, and BECKY FORBUSH, individually, and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the United Wholesale Mortgage Plan, LLC Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Plaintiffs v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, and UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC 401(K) COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11216-SKD-CI (E.D. Mich., April 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of the duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as for fiduciary and parties-in-interest transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The allegations in this complaint contend that Plan forfeitures should have been used to pay United Wholesale Mortgage LLC Profit Sharing Plan and Trust expenses instead of employer contributions. The allegations do not concern the compensation received by the Plan's service providers and investment advisors or that the Plan Committee selected imprudent Plan investments. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (a) improperly utilized forfeited Plan assets to disloyally reduce future employer contributions for their own selfish interests; (b) did not engage in a prudent process when deciding to use Plan forfeitures for the employer's own benefit rather than to reduce Plan expenses; (c) failed to monitor those responsible on the Plan Committee for allocation of Plan forfeitures; (d) engaged in party-in-interest fiduciary prohibited transactions by enriching themselves through Plan forfeitures; and (e) engaged in fiduciary prohibited transactions by favoring their own accounts with Plan forfeitures. The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the UnitedHealth Plan. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC is an American wholesale mortgage lender headquartered in Pontiac, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Kotalik Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- THERESA M. KOTALIK, DEBRA A. WISNER, KERRY CLEMENTS, and JOSEPH L. CLEMENT, individually, and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of UnitedHealth Group 401(k) Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, and ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE UNITEDHEALTH GROUP 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-01751 (D. Minn., April 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of the duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as for fiduciary and parties-in-interest transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (a) improperly utilized forfeited Plan assets to disloyally reduce future employer contributions for their own selfish interests; (b) did not engage in a prudent process when deciding to use Plan forfeitures for the employer's own benefit rather than to reduce Plan expenses; (c) failed to monitor those responsible on the Plan Committee for allocation of Plan forfeitures; (d) engaged in party-in-interest fiduciary prohibited transactions by enriching themselves through Plan forfeitures; and (e) engaged in fiduciary prohibited transactions by favoring their own accounts with Plan forfeitures. The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the UnitedHealth Plan. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is an American multinational for profit company specializing in health insurance and health care services based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy R. Mason, Esq. CUMMINS & BONESTROO 363 5th Avenue North 200 Professional Bldg Bayport, MN 55003 Telephone: (612) 306-3808 E-mail: amason@cblawoffices.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com VGW HOLDINGS: Lighter Balks at Illegal Gambling Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE LIGHTER, JOHN BROWN, TRENA OSTLUND, KARIM LAURY, and EVE FIELDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs v. VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA HOLDING LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW GAMES LIMITED, VGW GP LIMITED, VGW HOLDINGS US INC., VGW US, INC., VGW LUCKYLAND INC., and DOES 1 25, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-00062 (D. Mont., April 28, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to recover losses from VGW and to force VGW to disgorge those losses under the anti-gambling laws of the Plaintiffs' respective states. VGW owns and operates at least three online casinos -- Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Slots, and Global Poker -- in numerous states that expressly prohibit such gambling. The VGW Casinos operate largely the same as any other casino: the casinos take and convert gamblers' cash into virtual casino chips or slot machine credits and then gamblers wager those virtual casino coins in a variety of games of chance, including slot machines, craps, blackjack, and poker. According to the complaint, the Defendants have same business model used by other purveyors of illegal or highly regulated vices: VGW uses the gold coins to give users a "taste" of VGW's real-money gambling, get gamblers "hooked" on that gambling, and get gamblers to keep coming back to the casino with more and more cash in hand. Further, by giving gamblers hundreds of thousands to millions of gold coins and then forcing gamblers to bet hundreds (and up to millions) of gold coins on each hand or spin, VGW grooms gamblers to place consistently large bets on each spin or hand. The VGW Casinos intentionally design their games to exploit this grooming by allowing the gamblers to instantly switch from gold coins to sweepstakes coins between every slot pull, hand of cards, or roll of the dice, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members live in states that not only prohibit illicit casino gambling, but expressly permit gamblers or their family members to recover anything and everything gambled and lost in Defendants' illegal casinos. VGW Holdings Limited operating as Virtual Gaming Worlds, is an Australian public company and interactive entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raph Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, P.C. 300 4th St. N. P.O. Box 3586 Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com - and - Bryan Caforio, Esq. Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Erik L. Wilson, Esq. Julian Schneider, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com kpachman@susmangodfrey.com ewilson@susmangodfrey.com jschneider@susmangodfrey.com VITALITY GUARD: Carter Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONTWAIN CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITALITY GUARD INSURANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00045-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, April 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plaintiff's number, in an attempt to promote its products or services. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class members' suffered damages, says the suit. Vitality Guard Insurance, LLC is an insurance provider in Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Mail, Esq. PURYEAR LAW P.C. 3719 Bridge Ave, Suite 6 Davenport, IA 52807 Telephone: (563) 265-8344 Email: mail@puryearlaw.com VOLUSIA, FL: Court Reopens Powell Case, Permits Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Judge Julie N. Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Plaintiffs' motion to set aside the dismissal of the action styled as, Kimberly Powell et al vs The School Board of Volusia County, Florida, Case No: 6:21-cv-1791-JSS-UAM (M.D. Fla.). The Clerk is directed to vacate the final judgment and reopen this case. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of this action, specifically seeking to set aside the court's January 17, 2025 order . The court construes their motion as requesting relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), under which a court may relieve a party from a final judgment. Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs have "failed to meet [their] burden to establish the extraordinary remedy of vacating the [c]ourt's order and judgment." Plaintiffs brought this putative class action seeking damages in excess of $50 million on behalf of themselves and all persons who suffered disability discrimination while attending schools operated by Defendant. They alleged that Defendant failed to accommodate their disabilities. On April 16, 2024, on Defendant's motion, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' amended complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint "within [thirty] days." Plaintiffs' second amended complaint was due on May 16, 2024. However, Plaintiffs did not timely amend their complaint or ask for an extension of time to do so. On May 21, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint that same day, along with a response to the court's order explaining that "due to a clerical error," they "did not realize [that] the second amended complaint was filed out of time." The court discharged the order to show cause and accepted the second amended complaint "as filed." On June 18, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, arguing in part that Automotive Alignment & Body Service, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 953 F.3d 707 (11th Cir. 2020), was controlling. The Automotive Alignment court held that "an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend within a specified time becomes a final judgment if the time allowed for amendment expires without the plaintiff seeking an extension. And when the order becomes a final judgment, the district court loses all its prejudgment powers to grant any more extensions of time to amend the complaint." Under this binding authority, the court acknowledged that Plaintiffs' failure to timely amend rendered the court's order dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice a final judgment on May 16, 2024 -- the date the amendment was due. The court explained that it therefore had not had jurisdiction to enter the order accepting the second amended complaint as properly filed. The court had "surrendered jurisdiction" over the action "when the deadline to amend expired," rendering its "orders entered after that time . . . a nullity." The court accordingly dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A final judgment has been entered against Plaintiffs. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court, "[o]n motion and just terms," to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Rule 60(b) enumerates six grounds upon which such relief may be granted, including "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." A motion brought under Rule 60(b)(1) "must be made . . . no more than a year after the entry of the judgment." According to Judge Sneed, "[a] Rule 60(b) motion must be equitably and liberally applied to achieve substantial justice." "Doubt should be resolved in favor of a judicial decision on the merits of a case, and a technical error or a slight mistake by a party's attorney should not deprive [that party] of an opportunity to present the true merits of his claims." Whether to relieve a party from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) is "a matter for the district court's sound discretion." Judge Sneed continued, in the context of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, "[t]he determination of what constitutes excusable neglect is generally an equitable one, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Four factors are relevant to the excusable neglect inquiry: "the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith." According to Judge Sneed, each of the four factors weighs in favor of granting Plaintiffs' motion. With regard to prejudice, Defendant maintains that Plaintiffs' failure to move for relief from the final judgment for more than nine months was prejudicial to it, but "simple delay is insufficient for prejudice." Delay is most germane to the prejudice inquiry where the delaying parties put themselves "in a position of unfair advantage," as by "allow[ing] relevant evidence to turn stale." Defendant offers no argument for prejudice beyond the mere fact of delay, and so the court does not find that granting Plaintiffs' motion will substantially prejudice it. The second and third factors -- the length of and reason for the delay -- also militate in Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Sneed explained, noting that the impact on judicial administration is minimal. The length of delay that was attributable to Plaintiffs was negligible, as they filed their second amended complaint only five days late. Moreover, once the court ruled that its prior dismissal order had been rendered a final judgment, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion within two weeks. As for the reason given for the delay, Plaintiffs stated that they failed to file their second amended complaint on time due to a clerical error, and a "clerical error constitutes excusable neglect." Plaintiffs' failure to timely file their second amended complaint was "attributable to negligence." It was apparently nothing more than "an innocent oversight by counsel." This situation is precisely the sort contemplated by Rule 60(b). As such, Plaintiffs' motion is due to be granted. As immediately as practicable, Plaintiffs are directed to refile their second amended complaint in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A3eGhX from PacerMonitor.com. * * * Following the Court's ruling, the Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class. The Court also entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order providing that: -- Amended Pleadings are due by June 25, 2025 -- Joinder of Parties are due by June 25, 2025 -- Discovery is due by Sept. 1, 2026 -- Dispositive motions are due by Oct. 5, 2026 -- Pretrial statement is due by Jan. 14, 2027 -- All other motions are due by Jan. 21, 2027 -- Plaintiff disclosure of expert report is due by July 6, 2026; -- Defendant disclosure of expert report is due by Aug. 3, 2026; -- Final Pretrial Conference is set for Feb. 11, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. -- Jury Trial is set for March 1, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. -- Mediation hearing must be conducted by Sept. 14, 2026 Lead counsel is directed to coordinate the dates. [] Seyfarth Shaw Appoints Giovanna Ferrari as Litigation Chair -------------------------------------------------------------- Seyfarth Shaw LLP has appointed Giovanna Ferrari as chair of the firm's Litigation Department and Andrew Lucano as the next Corporate Department chair. "Gina and Andrew are outstanding leaders whose appointments reflect Seyfarth's commitment to deepening client service, strengthening collaboration, and advancing our strategic growth," said Lorie Almon, chair and managing partner of Seyfarth. "As we continue to expand the breadth and depth of the firm's capabilities, our Corporate and Litigation practices play a vital role in delivering innovative, business-focused solutions. Gina and Andrew have consistently demonstrated exceptional leadership and a deep commitment to the firm's success. Their appointments are met with widespread enthusiasm and support from their partners." Ms. Ferrari, based in San Francisco, succeeds James McGrath, who served six years as the leader of the Litigation practice, strategically expanding the department in London, Dallas, Seattle, and Charlotte. Mr. McGrath also oversaw the expansion of the Government Contracts group and the launch of the cross-departmental International Dispute Resolution Group. "Seyfarth has been entrusted by many of the largest companies and organizations to defend them in high-stakes litigation, including class and collective actions, bet-the-company cases, and other high-value, high-profile matters," said Mr. Ferrari. "I am deeply honored to have the opportunity to lead our impressive team of litigators across the firm. Together, we'll continue to strengthen Seyfarth's reputation as a go-to firm for complex litigation and demonstrate our commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients." Mr. Lucano follows Steven Meier, who spent seven years in the head role of the Corporate department overseeing new targeted growth areas, including real estate investment funds, and the establishment of the Corporate department in Seattle and San Francisco. Mr. Meier also created a successful national staffing model and helped recruit a series of outstanding lateral partners who have quickly become key firm leaders. "Seyfarth is dedicated to strategically expanding the breadth and depth of our transactional offerings with the infusion of outstanding legal talent, as we have been doing," said Mr. Lucano. "I am very excited to lead our efforts to take our Corporate Department to the next level by fostering innovative approaches and driving high performance and continuing to provide exceptional service to enable our clients to achieve their goals." Both Messrs. McGrath and Meier will continue to serve Seyfarth in firmwide leadership positions in addition to their longstanding roles as top-tier legal practitioners. Ms. Ferrari, who joined Seyfarth as an associate in 2007, co-chairs the firm's Impact & Sustainability practice group and has held key leadership roles within the firm, including on the Litigation Department Leadership Team, Intake Committee, and the Lawyer Development Committee. She previously served as co-lead of the San Francisco Litigation Department, where she helped drive strategic growth and foster cross-office collaboration. Ms. Ferrari will continue her active litigation practice as the go-to trial counsel for many firm clients facing high-stakes fraud and contract disputes. She also advises on Impact & Sustainability strategies, helping organizations navigate evolving regulatory and reputational risks. Her practice spans commercial and business litigation across industries, with deep experience in the financial services, government contracting, and retail/hospitality sectors. She defends companies in matters involving breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, securities fraud, director and officer liability, business torts, and consumer protection claims under California law. Ms. Ferrari earned her JD from the University of San Francisco Law School and her BA from UCLA, along with certification from Berkeley Law. Mr. Lucano, based in New York, will continue to serve as co-chair of Seyfarth's vibrant M&A Practice Group. He joined Seyfarth in 2008 and has been a member of the National Corporate Department Leadership team, lead of the New York Corporate Department and a member of the firm's Lawyer Development Committee. In addition to his new role as department chair, Mr. Lucano will continue his active transactional practice where he offers clients extensive experience on all sides of a deal. He has built a highly regarded reputation for closing transactions effectively and efficiently and for expertly guiding clients through difficult negotiations and complex transaction processes. On the buy side, he collaborates with strategic companies as well as financial buyers (including private equity firms and family offices) to invest in the future of their businesses. He is the editor of Seyfarth's annual Middle Market M&A SurveyBook, which has been published for the last 10 years. Mr. Lucano is also a trusted adviser to many of his clients regarding general corporate and other matters, including corporate governance and the day-to-day operation of their business. He received his JD from St. John's University School of Law and his BS from the State University of New York at Albany. Seyfarth's Corporate Department has more than 100 lawyers across the firm's offices in the US and internationally. The firm's Corporate attorneys are experienced in every phase of the business lifecycle, and represent clients with respect to negotiating commercial contracts, joint ventures and mergers and acquisitions. They provide counsel to privately and publicly held companies, including private equity portfolio companies, family owned and entrepreneurial driven enterprises. Seyfarth's Litigation Department, with more than 160 attorneys, supports clients across a wide range of industries in every facet of dispute resolution and risk management, both in the US and internationally. Seyfarth has earned a formidable reputation for handling complex litigation matters—from pre-dispute strategy through trial and appeal in federal and state courts - as well as providing practical, business-focused counseling to enable clients to navigate and mitigate legal risks. About Seyfarth With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides top-tier advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. ********* 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 ***