250516.mbx

250516.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 98 Headlines A & V CAJUN INC: Carmona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALL ONE GOD FAITH: Johnston Files Suit in S.D. California AMERICAN RENAL: Doe Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Pain Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana ANANE ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in Garcia Suit AOM HEALTHCARE: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Dietrick Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due May 23 AWESOMELY LLC: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina BAKKT HOLDINGS: Frankin Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Toss Sherman Act-Related Suit Pending BEST BUY CO: Whitt Files Suit in D. Oregon BINANCE HOLDINGS: Martin Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida BLUE LINK WIRELESS: Lafferty Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BLUE SHIELD: Fails to Safeguard Personal, Health Info, Smith Says BOYLAND AUTO: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Class Action BRANDS LBNY: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pay BXP INC: Continues to Defend Wage Hour Class Suit in New York CALLAN MANAGEMENT: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL VISION: Clark FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana CCRM PARENT HOLDINGS: Tyman Files Suit in D. Colorado CENTER BRANDS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CERNER CORPORATION: Adams Sues Over Failure to Protect Data CLEAN CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Robertson Due Sept. 19 COMPLETE PAYROLL: Faces Lim Suit Over Private Data Breach COMPLETE PAYROLL: Strycharz Files Suit in D. Massachusetts CONCENTRIX CVG: Tottingham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DANIELA'S FLOWER: Faces Jones Suit Over Website Inaccessibility DAVE INC: Russell Suit Removed to C.D. California DELANCEY STREET GROUP: Tom Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York DOE RUN: Faces Summers Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DUNCAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Doe Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. E & E CO. LTD: Butler Suit Removed to C.D. California EDGE CREATIVE CO: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Fact Discovery in Greystone Due March 5, 2026 ESCOT BUS LINES: Marin Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. EXP REALTY: Hollis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FOLEY CARRIER SERVICES: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Wu Balks at Unlawful Additional Fees GSA KING: Rosales-Herrera Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages HAMILTON HEALTH: Self Files Suit Over Data Breach HERSHEY CO: Pittman Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Nunez Suit Says KIRKLAND’S STORIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miles Suit Alleges L & S ELECTRIC: Zayas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LADIBUGS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Suit Says LASERAWAY MEDICAL: Rowser Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices LONG BEACH, CA: Killen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI LONG BEACH, CA: Oden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MASHBURN LLC: Cantwell Sues Over Website's ADA Violations MDL 3142: Panel Denies Transfer of 11 Suits to E.D. Mich. MDL 3143: 12 Suits Centralized in OpenAI Copyright Infringement Row MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Pearson Sues Over Deceptive OREO Marketing MP2 ENT: Brandi-Vanmeter Must File Response Brief by May 23 NATIONAL DENTAL: Wills Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing Bids to Dismiss Due June 16 NEW YORK ROASTING: Faces Wills Suit Over Website Inaccessibility NORSWOOD LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Inaccessible Website NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY: Lofton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages NOW YOU'RE CLEAN: Wills Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website NTH DEGREE: Blandford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI NVIDIA CORP: Class Cert Filing in Iron Workers Due July 11 OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Clegg Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORION SYSTEMS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PASLIN COMPANY: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation PIONEERS MEMORIAL: Esquivel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER: Timmons Files Suit in D. New Jersey POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info PRO-PAK INDUSTRIES: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Labor Law Breaches RAVINE 90 CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Claims RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Reynolds Says ROUSE SERVICES: Sued Over High Construction Equipment Rental Price SAPUTO INC: Rohde Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SCOTT EDUCATION: Paster Sues Over Labor Code Breaches SUNSET SURGERY: Velez Law Sues Over Defamation and Retaliation SWISSKLIP USA: Hedges Sues Over Website Inaccessibility TA OUTFITTERS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TAKE A BREAK: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: UFCW Balks at Generic Drug Dexilant Monopoly TAPESTRY INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TECH DIGITAL: Vongdara Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts TOWN OF BROWNSBURG: Adams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TRUE CLASSIC TEES: Lopez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida UNIQLO USA: Faces Welcome Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Dickie Suit Removed to C.D. California V.I.P. INC: Fedorchuk Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts VIA TRANSPORTATION: Michal Sues Over Worker Misclassification VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Suit Removed to C.D. California WALGREEN CO: Faces Caballero Suit Over Labor Law Violations WINGS FINANCIAL CREDIT: Gahm Suit Removed to D. Minnesota YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Quinn Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,653 PI Claims as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has 41 Open Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 887 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Faces 57 New Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,261 Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 602 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $44MM Reserves as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 497 Claims as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Reports 1,195 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ********* A & V CAJUN INC: Carmona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against A & V Cajun, Inc. The case is styled as Emely Ontiveros Carmona, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A & V Cajun, Inc., B & C House, Inc., Bag O Crab MC LLC, Bag O'Crab, Inc., Case No. CU25-03833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." A & V Cajun, Inc. -- https://cajunfryer.com/ -- is the official home of the Original Cajun Fryer, Smokin' Cajun Grill, Cajun Express Smoker, Cajun Broiler and other R&V Works products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Vinson, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-659-3071 Email: racheljvinson@gmail.com ALL ONE GOD FAITH: Johnston Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All One God Faith, Inc. The case is styled as Biance Johnston, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. All One God Faith, Inc. doing business as: Dr. Bronner's, Case No. 3:25-cv-01147-JO-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action Fairness Act. All One God Faith, Inc. doing business as Dr. Bronner's -- https://www.drbronner.com/ -- is an American producer of organic soap and personal care products headquartered in Vista, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 West Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 529-5418 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com AMERICAN RENAL: Doe Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Renal Management LLC d/b/a Innovative Renal Care, Case No. 1:25-cv-10518 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on May 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00510 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. American Renal Management LLC doing business as Innovative Renal Care -- https://innovativerenal.com/ -- is a network of dialysis professionals devoted to helping people with kidney disease lead their best lives as they undergo treatment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 933-1265 Fax: (410) 653-9030 Email: kdougherty@myadvocates.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com AMETROS FINANCIAL: Louisiana Pain Suit Removed to M.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Louisiana Pain Specialists, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ametros Financial Corporation, Case No. C-761106 was removed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on May 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-BAJ-SDJ. The Plaintiff alleges in the Petition that Ametros failed to pay or has improperly paid Plaintiff and other putative class members in connection with provided healthcare services to patients whose medical expenses were covered by a Medicare Set-Aside as part of a workers' compensation settlement within the last three years.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: L. Bradley Hancock, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Louisiana Bar No. 27234 811 Main Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77002-5227 Phone: 713-821-7000 Email: brad.hancock@hklaw.com ANANE ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in Garcia Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANIE DAYANA GARCIA GARCIA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANANE ENTERPRISE LLC; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01993-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting in part and denying in part Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss as follows: 1. Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint based on group pleading is denied; 2. Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss Claims One, Two, Three, Four, and Six is denied; 3. Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss Claims Seven, Nine, and Ten is granted without leave to amend; 4. Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss Claims Five, and Eight is granted with leave to amend; and 5. Amazon Defendants' motion to dismiss the class allegations is granted with leave to amend. The Court also denies Amazon Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations as moot. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than 30 days from the electronic filing date of this Order. Amazon Defendants shall file a responsive pleading not later than 21 days from the electronic filing date of the amended complaint. If the Plaintiff opts not to file an amended complaint, the case will proceed on the Plaintiff's remaining claims. The Plaintiff does not adequately allege facts indicating every class member suffered from a system-wide practice or policy that resulted in the same violations under California's Labor Code. On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint in San Joaquin County Superior Court on behalf of "all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of [the] Complaint." The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from June 2022 to the present. Anane is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Stockton, California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Exryj1 at no extra charge.[CC] AOM HEALTHCARE: Jacobs Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Jacobs, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. AOM HEALTHCARE LLC, LP OPCO, LLC D/B/A LAKE POINTE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00923-CEF (N.D. Ohio, May 7, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendants that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay wages. The Defendants had a policy and practice of deducting 30-minute unpaid meal breaks from employees' time worked, including Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated were often interrupted during their meal breaks or were unable to take their full 30-minute meal breaks due to work duties. Despite these interruptions and incomplete meal breaks, Defendants continued to deduct, or cause to be deducted, 30 minutes from Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' time worked, and this time was not counted towards their weekly total hours. The Defendant failed to accurately record and compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all time worked. As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' Lake Pointe facility in Conneaut, Ohio. AOM holds itself out as having the purpose of acquiring entities and real property in the operation of skilled nursing facilities, senior living facilities, and related business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Dietrick Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apartment Management Consultants, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Dietrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC, Case No. 2025-11478-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., May 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Transactions." Apartment Management Consultants LLC -- https://www.amcllc.net/ -- provides real estate services. The Company offers property and asset management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. 225 1st Ave. N Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 APPLE INC: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Disclosures Due May 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN LEBLOND, ANGELA STEVENS, and PATRICIA ORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Rosenstengel entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for leave to amend the complaint by April 18, 2025. 2. The Defendant shall respond to the amended complaint, if any, within 30 days of its filing. 3. Supplemental fact discovery shall close on April 25, 2025. 4. The Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification, if any, shall be filed by May 12, 2025. 5. The Plaintiffs shall make any supplemental expert disclosures by May 23, 2025. 6. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' supplemental class certification motion, if any, shall be filed by June 20, 2025. 7. The Defendant shall make any supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures by June 20, 2025. 8. The Plaintiffs shall make any rebuttal supplemental expert disclosures, if necessary, by July 7, 2025. 9. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their supplemental class certification motion, if any, shall be filed by July 14, 2025. 10. Summary judgment and Daubert motions shall be filed by July 25, 2025. 11. Summary judgment and Daubert oppositions shall be filed by Aug. 29, 2025. 12. Summary judgment and Daubert replies shall be filed by Sept. 26, 2025. 13. Presumptive Jury Trial month is Nov. 2025. Apple is an American multinational technology company best known for its consumer electronics, software, and services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WLVOD8 at no extra charge.[CC] AWESOMELY LLC: Anderson Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Awesomely LLC. The case is styled as Austin Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Awesomely LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03809-RMG (D.S.C., May 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Awesomely -- https://awesomely.com/ -- is an e-learning platform that offers financial and real estate training courses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P DUFFY PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street, Suite 500 Unit 450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Phone: (704) 741-9399 Email: ryan@ryanpduffy.com BAKKT HOLDINGS: Frankin Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Guy Serge A. Frankin, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bakkt Holdings, Inc., Gavin Michael, Andrew Main, Karen Alexander, Case No. 1:25-cv-02753 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02520-MLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the Securities Exchange Act. Bakkt Holdings, Inc. -- https://bakkt.com/ -- provides a software as a service and API platform for owning and trading cryptocurrency and redeeming loyalty points.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Barbara Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP -NYNY 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (213) 521-8007 BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Toss Sherman Act-Related Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2025, that the motion to dismiss plaintiff's Sherman Act-related First Amended Complaint is pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 20, 2024, Reading Hospital filed a putative class action complaint against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1 and 2 of The Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act by allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for standard, ICU and birthing beds. The plaintiff filed the action on behalf of itself and all "direct purchasers of Standard Hospital Beds, ICU Beds, and/or Birthing Beds from Hill-Rom during a period beginning at least as early as June 20, 2020" and continuing past the date of filing. On September 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On November 8, 2024, Hillrom filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Briefing was completed in January 2025, and the court held a hearing on the motion on March 25, 2025. The motion is pending before the court. Headquartered in Deerfield, IL, Baxter International Inc. develops, manufactures and markets medical products. [BN] BEST BUY CO: Whitt Files Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Co., Inc. The case is styled as David Whitt, for himself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00761-SI (D. Ore., May 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Best Buy Co., Inc. -- https://www.bestbuy.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer electronics retailer headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8650 Email: che@hattislaw.com BINANCE HOLDINGS: Martin Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Phillip Martin, T.F. Tang also known as: Natalie, Yatin Khanna, and others similarly situated v. Binance Holdings Ltd. doing business as: Binance, BAM Trading Services Inc doing business as: Binance.US, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01264 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22100-DPG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the Securities Exchange Act. Binance Holdings Ltd., branded Binance, is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of daily trading volume of cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Chad Silver, Esq. Jason Stuart Miller, Esq. SILVER MILLER 4450 NW 126th Avenue-Suite 101 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: (954) 516-6000 Email: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com - and - Daniel Tramel Stabile, Esq. Gabriela Ana Plasencia, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN/CHICAGO 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 379-9139 Email: DStabile@winston.com gplasencia@winston.com BLUE LINK WIRELESS: Lafferty Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Shayne Lafferty, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BLUE LINK WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00803-JPW (M.D. Pa., May 6, 2025), is brought seeking unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). Prior to June 10, 2024, Defendant paid Plaintiff and many other Store Leaders salaries and, as a matter of company policy, deemed them ineligible for overtime pay when they worked over 40 hours per week. Specifically, Defendant converted Plaintiff and other Salaried Store Leaders to hourly employees entitled to overtime wages during weeks in which they work over 40 hours. In failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Salaried Store Leaders prior to June 10, 2024, Defendant acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions and, moreover, violated the PMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Store Leader at a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania store from Summer 2023 until January 2025. The Defendant operates a chain of retail stores that sell, inter alia, cell phones and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com BLUE SHIELD: Fails to Safeguard Personal, Health Info, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEANNA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03712 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other 4.7 million customrs. The Defendant historically used Google Analytics to track the website usage of plan members who engaged certain Blue Shield websites. The Defendant negligently configured its Google accounts, which lead to the unauthorized disclosure of individually identifiable health information. On February 11, 2025, the Defendant discovered that, between April 2021 and January 2024, Google Analytics allowed sensitive plan member data to be shared with Google's advertising product, Google Ads. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with notice of the data collection, the purposes for the collection, and failed to obtain affirmative consent for the collection and dissemination of their PHI/PII for advertising purposes. The Defendant invaded Plaintiff and Class Members' privacy by utilizing tracking technology that surreptitiously collected, shared, stored, and processed their PHI/PII without obtaining prior affirmative consent, says the suit. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company, doing business as, Blue Shield of California, is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan with a principal place of business in Oakland, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Poulin, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BOYLAND AUTO: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Thomas L. Kirsch II, John Z. Lee, and Nancy L. Maldonado of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, of William L. Armstrong III's lawsuit against Boyland Auto BGMC LLC. The Seventh Circuit cited Armstrong's repeated failure to comply with orders to either obtain counsel or amend his complaint to proceed only on behalf of himself, as he could not represent a class as a pro se litigant. The case was decided without oral argument because "the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court." Armstrong filed his pro se complaint against the defendants, Case No. 24-CV-765-JPS, in June 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that several individuals and automotive businesses violated state and federal law by failing to pay cash prizes they had promised to him and others. He claimed the defendants unlawfully conspired to withhold cash prizes that were promised in a mailed notice that Armstrong and nearly one hundred thousand other people had received. Armstrong sought to certify a class of households that received the mailed notice under FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The defendants, Boyland Auto BGMC LLC and others, were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. The complaint named these automotive businesses and individuals as responsible for the alleged conspiracy, but specific details about their roles or defenses were not addressed in the disposition, given the early dismissal of the case before service of process. The procedural history began under Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. The district court deferred screening his complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) to first "address a threshold issue" -- his characterization of the suit as a class action. The court informed Armstrong that he could not sue on behalf of a class while proceeding pro se and gave him two weeks to obtain counsel or proceed only on behalf of himself, warning that failure to timely comply with its order would result in dismissal of his suit. Armstrong did not comply with the district court's order. Instead, he requested an indefinite stay and recruitment of interim class counsel. The court denied these, noting he had not shown that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel independently. Armstrong was instructed he could (1) proceed on behalf of himself; (2) obtain counsel and then seek class certification; or (3) renew his request to recruit counsel. He filed further motions, including for recruitment of counsel and service of process, which were denied as his previous filings showed that he was competent to litigate his individual claims himself. The court granted his IFP motion but deferred service until screening. After Armstrong, still purporting to represent the putative class -- filed another omnibus motion, the court issued a "final warning" of dismissal. When he filed another motion, the court dismissed the suit for failure to comply with its orders. On appeal, Armstrong challenged the dismissal, arguing the court erred in barring him from representing a class. The Seventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, noting district courts generally have broad authority to dismiss a suit for failure to comply with court orders. The Seventh Circuit held that a pro se litigant can represent only himself, citing Georgakis v. Ill. State Univ., 722 F.3d 1075, 1077 (7th Cir. 2013): "A nonlawyer can't handle a case on behalf of anyone except himself." Armstrong's argument that the court erred by delaying service was rejected, as a court need not order service of process at government expense before completing this step. The Seventh Circuit stated: "The court gave Armstrong multiple explanations and, importantly, multiple warnings that he needed to take one of its suggested actions to remedy the defect." "We have considered Armstrong's remaining arguments, including that the district court should have deputized him to serve as an attorney for the class, but none is sufficiently developed to merit discussion." The appellate case is captioned as WILLIAM L. ARMSTRONG III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-3182 (7th Cir.). A copy of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6UUNvm from PacerMonitor.com. BRANDS LBNY: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Desiree Diaz, Erin Anderson-Wrapp, Brian Donovan, Ronald Washington, Peter Barrios, and all those similarly situated v. BRANDS LBNY CORPORATION d/b/a BRANDS DELI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02316-NJC-LGD (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2025), is brought to seek redress against Defendant for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs at Brands Deli overtime pay, failure to pay spread of hour, failure to provide proper statements with each payment of wages and failure to provide annual wage rate notifications in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and The Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WPTA"). The Plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per week, but Defendant did not pay them time and a half for the overtime hours they worked each week. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not receive spread of hours pay and Defendant failed to provide them with wage notices and wage statements at the end of each pay period, as required by New York law. Irrespective of the number of hours worked per week, at no time did Defendant pay overtime at one and one-half times Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate nor they receive any tips. Defendant issued payment for Plaintiffs' first 40 hours worked cash weekly, and for any overtime hours worked Plaintiffs were not properly paid as New York Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as cooks and counter clerks in Long Beach, New York, from 2021 through present. Brands Deli is a deli known for subs, sandwiches, salads and catering in Long Beach, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Luke, Jr., Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 419 Melville, New York 11747 Phone: (631) 420-9300 BXP INC: Continues to Defend Wage Hour Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- BXP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the wage hour class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company is a named defendant in an alleged collective and class action wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of certain individuals who provided off-duty, uniformed security services at the Company's buildings in New York City pursuant to the New York Police Department's Paid Detail Program. In addition to the Company, the plaintiffs also named as defendants more than ninety (90) other entities and institutions in the city. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 24, 2025, and brought the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Freelance Isn’t Free Act. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint on February 7, 2025 and on February 24, 2025. Each of the complaints alleges that the plaintiffs were not paid certain wages owed to them or were not paid in a timely manner and that the plaintiffs did not receive certain wage payment notices required by law. The Company has not yet filed a responsive pleading and discovery has not yet commenced. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss for which losses are reasonably possible. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend against them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuit. BXP, Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company owns, develops, and manages workplaces and office properties. BXP serves customers in the United States. CALLAN MANAGEMENT: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callan Management Co., Inc. The case is styled as Jamont Carlton Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Callan Management Co., Inc., Case No. 25NNCV03138 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Callan -- https://www.callan.com/ -- provides advice and support to more than 400 institutional plans, funds, and asset pools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com CAPITAL VISION: Clark FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Alice Clark, Christopher Coulter, Aaron Perez, Kevin Nelson, Phillp Roscher, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC doing business as: MYEYEDR, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236 transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00857-MPB-CSW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Capital Vision Services, LLC, doing business as MyEyeDr. -- https://www.capitalvisionservices.com/ -- provides optometric and retail optical services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: (817) 416-5060 - and - Hillary A. Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 607-3260 - and - Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Camar Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 - and - Loren B. Donnell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 - and - Sam J. Smith, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 9800 4th Street North, Suite 200 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Phone: (813) 253-2010 Fax: (813) 254-8391 The Defendant is represented by: Barry J. Miller, Esq. Abigail Skinner, Esq. Emily J. Miller, Esq. Hillary J. Massey, Esq. Molly Clayton Mooney, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 946-4800 CCRM PARENT HOLDINGS: Tyman Files Suit in D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCRM Parent Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stacy Tyman, Sonal Keenan Bhatia, Randi Maves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCRM Parent Holdings, Inc., CCRM Practice, LLC, CCRM Management Company Holdings, LP, Case No. 1:25-cv-01425-CYC (D. Colo., May 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. CCRM Fertility -- https://www.ccrmivf.com/ -- is a leading fertility clinic network with numerous locations throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Alan Katz, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH JARDINE PC 40 Inverness Drive East Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: (303) 792-5595 Fax: (303) 708-0527 Email: skatz@burgsimpson.com CENTER BRANDS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE CENTER BRANDS, LLC, D/B/A SALTAIR, Case No. 1:25-cv-03768 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.saltair.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CERNER CORPORATION: Adams Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ----------------------------------------------------------- Karen Adams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00345-DGK (W.D. Mo., May 8, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former patients' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. Union Health is a healthcare provider--and Defendant Oracle is a third Party vendor that provides data migration services to Union Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com CLEAN CONTROL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Robertson Due Sept. 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Robertson v. Clean Control Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-01478-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered a scheduling order regarding the Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report. The Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report indicates the Plaintiff's intent to file a motion for class certification. Because this Court stays all merits discovery pending the determination of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, the Court reserves judgment on the Parties' proposed schedule pending the Court's decision regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court sets the deadlines below for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and will set a case management conference regarding the remaining deadlines after the Court decides the motion. Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend May 9, 2025 Pleadings or Add Parties: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Motion Sept. 19, 2025 for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition Oct. 3, 2025 to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply Oct. 10, 2025 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report: Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 7, 2025 Clean offers cleaning, deodorizing, and specialty products for families and industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SR10tt at no extra charge.[CC] COMPLETE PAYROLL: Faces Lim Suit Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- SOKANKELLY LIM, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETE PAYROLL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-30084 (D. Mass., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information and protected health information stored within its information network. The Plaintiff's and Class member's private information was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach that occurred between February 21 and March 10, 2024, of Defendant's system. However, the data breach was only announced when Defendant posted notice on its website and began mailing out notices to affected individuals to affected individuals on or about April 25, 2025. In addition, the Defendant failed to disclose the nature of the attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims for negligence, breach of a third party contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Headquartered Springfield, MA, Complete Payroll Solutions, LLC provides human resource, benefits, and payroll services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (737) 313-8560 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com COMPLETE PAYROLL: Strycharz Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Payroll Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Carolyn Strycharz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Complete Payroll Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11240-LTS (D. Mass., May 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Complete Payroll -- https://www.completepayrollsolutions.com/ -- offers payroll services, HR software, time & attendance management & tax services for small & mid-size employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com CONCENTRIX CVG: Tottingham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Tottingham, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. CONCENTRIX CVG, LLC., a Foreign Profit Corporation (d/b/a) CONCENTRIX, Case No. 5:25-cv-00292 (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2025), is brought to recover for unpaid wages and overtime premiums as a result of the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract). The Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were subjected to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary pre-shift and post-lunch activities, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal and state laws. Further, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime hours worked because Defendant failed to properly calculate the overtime pay rate to include non-discretionary bonuses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly Customer Service Representative ("CSR") and was hired from December 2024 through February 2025, working remotely for Defendant's call center. Concentrix is a foreign limited liability company and is registered with the Florida Department of Corporations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com DANIELA'S FLOWER: Faces Jones Suit Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DANIELA'S FLOWER SHOP II, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03681 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on June 1, 2024, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now bring this class action asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law. Daniela's Flower Shop II owns and operates the website, www.danielasflowershop.com, which offers flower arrangements for various occasions such as weddings, funerals, birthdays, anniversaries, and special events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DAVE INC: Russell Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Russell and Joseph Preston, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. DAVE INC., a Delaware corporation, and EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Case No. 25STCV09358 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 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04029. In the State Court Action, Plaintiffs have alleged the following claims for relief: Violations of the Military Lending Act (the "MLA"), and Violations of the Truth in Lending Act (the "TILA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hank Bates, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: hbates@cbplaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Pearl, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 620-5700 Facsimile: (310) 620-5899 Email: jamespearl@paulhastings.com - and - Derek E. Wetmore, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: derekwetmore@paulhastings.com - and - Allyson Baker, Esq. Meredith Boylan, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 551-1700 Facsimile: (202) 551-1705 Email: allysonbaker@paulhastings.com meredithboylan@paulhastings.com DELANCEY STREET GROUP: Tom Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delancey Street Group LLC. The case is styled as David Tom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delancey Street Group LLC doing business as: MCA Justice, Case No. 1:25-cv-00566-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Delancey Street Partners -- https://www.delanceystreetpartners.com/ -- is an independent, industry-focused investment bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com DOE RUN: Faces Summers Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE SUMMERS, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION d/b/a THE DOE RUN COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00595-PLC (E.D. Mo., April 29, 2025) is a collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Summers and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Doe Run does not pay Plaintiff Summers and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Doe Run requires hourly employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties, while on Doe Run's premises "off the clock." Doe Run's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates the FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an entry level miner from July 2023 to May 2024. The Doe Run Resources Corporation, d/b/a The Doe Run Company, operates multiple mines headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 448-4320 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DUNCAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Doe Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duncan Regional Hosp. Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Duncan Regional Hosp. INC., Case No. CJ-2025-00069 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Stephens Cty., May 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: NEGLIGENCE." DRH Health -- https://www.duncanregional.com/ -- is a progressive, not-for-profit community hospital that is constantly evolving to meet the ever-changing needs of the community.[BN] E & E CO. LTD: Butler Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Butler, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. E & E Co., Ltd., Case No. 30-02023-01342166 was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00940 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. E&E Co., Ltd. -- https://www.ee1994.com/ -- is a Textile Manufacturing, Apparel & Accessories Retail, and Retail company located in Fremont, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Howard M. Privette, Esq. SNELL AND WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 427-7000 Fax: (714) 427-7799 Email: hprivette@swlaw.com EDGE CREATIVE CO: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edge Creative Co., Inc. The case is styled as Dylan Christian Brooks, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Edge Creative Co., Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00568-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. EDGE Creative -- https://edgecreativeco.com/ -- is a digital marketing agency transforming businesses with social media advertising, SEO, email marketing, creative and content development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Fact Discovery in Greystone Due March 5, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREYSTONE MORTGAGE, INC., FIRST FINANCIAL LENDING LLC, v. EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LLC, EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02260-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Murphy entered an order as follows: 1. The Deadline to identify potential custodians is April 11, 2025. 2. The Deadline to amend pleadings to add claims or parties is Sept. 1, 2025. 3. The Deadline for substantial completion of party document production is Dec. 19, 2025. 4. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than March 5, 2026. 5. Affirmative expert reports shall be served no later than April 16, 2026. Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no later than May 28, 2026. Reply expert reports, if any, shall be served no later than June 18, 2026. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than July 23, 2026. 6. Motions for summary judgment, class certification, and Daubert motions shall be filed no later than Oct. 15, 2026. 7. Responses shall be filed no later than Nov. 12, 2026. Replies shall be filed no later than Dec. 10, 2026. Equifax operates as a human resource, analytics and verification services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ppi6aj at no extra charge.[CC] ESCOT BUS LINES: Marin Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escot Bus Lines LLC, et al. The case is styled as Llasnay Marin, Osdany Guzman Ind, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Escot Bus Lines LLC, Brain Scott, Case No. 25-002357-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., May 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Employment or Other Discrimination." ESCOT Bus Lines -- https://escotbuslines.com/ -- provides high-quality charter bus services for transporting groups of any size.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC 2745 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (877) 757-2828 EXP REALTY: Hollis Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Hollis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EXP REALTY, LLC and AARON YOON, Case No. 25-211480-5 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00822. This Court has original jurisdiction because Plaintiff's Complaint expressly asserts a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter M. Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC 1226 State Ave NE, Suite 205 Olympia, WA 98506 Email: walter@smithdietrich.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Cassandra Miller, Esq. Raina Broelli, Esq. Strauss Borrelli PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com cmiller@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathaniel L. Taylor, Esq. ELLIS, LI & McKINSTRY PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810 Seattle, WA 98101-1820 Phone: (206) 682-0565 Fax: (206) 625-1052 Email: ntaylor@elmlaw.com FOLEY CARRIER SERVICES: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foley Carrier Services LLC. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foley Carrier Services LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22067-XXXX (S.D. Cal., May 5, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Foley Services -- https://www.foleyservices.com/ -- is your partner for DOT compliance, drug & alcohol testing, driver qualification file management, background checks, audit support, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Wu Balks at Unlawful Additional Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- KAIDI WU and JUHYUN SO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC dba GREYSTAR, LLC and GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., dba GREYSTAR, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01090-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 29, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC is the largest residential property management company in the United States. According to the complaint, in addition to the advertised cost of rent, Greystar adds additional mandatory monthly fees that can add up to hundreds of dollars per month per tenant, including mandatory add-on fees that Greystar describes as "service fees," "administrative fees," "trash fees," and "pest control fees," among others. However they are characterized, these Junk Fees are simply mandatory additional charges that are actually part of the rental price for the units, asserts the suit. Added together, these Junk Fees can significantly increase the cost of renting a unit at a Greystar property by tens to hundreds of dollars each month, often adding up to over $500 each year in extra costs to tenants, including Plaintiffs, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 Facsimile: (916) 588-9330 E-mail: wgriffith@cutterlaw.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. David A. McGee, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com dmcgee@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com GSA KING: Rosales-Herrera Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JIMENA ROSALES-HERRERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GSA KING TOMATO FARM INC. (d/b/a GSA King Tomato Farm Inc.), GURSOL GILILOV and LENA GILILOV Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02391 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay "spread of hours" compensation, failure to furnish written wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Rosales-Herrera was employed by Defendants as a cashier from December 1, 2023 until October 24, 2024. GSA King Tomato Farm Inc., d/b/a GSA King Tomato Farm Inc., owns, operates, and controls a supermarket located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HAMILTON HEALTH: Self Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- MARTHA SELF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAMILTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a VITRUVIAN HEALTH, and NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00114-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 29, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected computer network. On or around July 11, 2024, Vitruvian Health were advised by NRS, a third-party collection agency used by Vitruvian Health, identified suspicious activity on its computer systems, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, Defendants determined that cybercriminals infiltrated the inadequately secured computer environment and accessed certain data files. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendants assumed a duty to securely store and protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendants breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the data breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing. Hamilton Health Care Systems, Inc., d/b/a Vitruvian Health, provides healthcare and medical services, operating centers in Georgia and Tennessee. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc. is collection agency that provided collection services to Vitruvian Health.[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 - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com HERSHEY CO: Pittman Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- KEITH PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00771-KMN (M.D. Pa., May 2, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back wages, liquidated damages, and other damages for Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Allegedly, the Defendant regularly permitted and required Plaintiff Pittman and potential Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours per week without proper overtime compensation. The Defendant either failed to record or "edited out"/shaved Plaintiff Pittman's and potential Plaintiffs' pre-shift work time out of its timekeeping system, resulting in them not being compensated for such work time at the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay within weekly pay periods, says the suit. Headquartered in Hershey, PA, The Hershey Company is a candy-making company with U.S. facilities in Hershey, Pennsylvania; Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Stuarts Draft, Virginia; Robinson, Illinois; Bluffton, Indiana; Lawrence, Kansas; Edgerton, Kansas; Lenexa, Kansas; and Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Nunez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VINICIO ANTONIO MADERA NUNEZ and THOMAS CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02384 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) is a collective and class action seeking relief for JetBlue's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The case arises from JetBlue's daily automatic deduction of 30 minutes from its employees' wages for a "break," even when employees were not assigned breaks or were required to work through their breaks. By virtue of the automatic break deduction policy, and the practice of requiring employees to work through breaks, JetBlue knowingly failed to pay FLSA Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs the statutory minimum wages for the hours they worked, says the suit. Plaintiff Nunez worked for JetBlue as ground operations crew, beginning in December 2021 until his termination in March 2025. Plaintiff Carter also worked as ground operations crew beginning in June 2014 and was paid on an hourly wage basis. Beginning in July 2022, Mr. Carter was assigned some supervisory duties and was paid on a salary basis, without time deducted for breaks. In January 2024, Mr. Carter's employment at JetBlue was terminated. JetBlue Airways Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Long Island City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 964-9640 E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com KIRKLAND’S STORIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miles Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANA MILES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03911 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2025) alleges numerous violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from approximately February 2011 to the present, in the State of California, County of Riverside. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. Kirkland's Stores, Inc. owns and operates home decor stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Esther L. Bylsma, Esq. Andrew Weaver, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com aweaver@schneiderwallace.com - and - Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 L & S ELECTRIC: Zayas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ BIANCA ZAYAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L & S ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-617 (E.D. Wis., April 29, 2025) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of shipping & receiving clerk from December 2023 until the end of his employment on January 23, 2025. L & S Electric, Inc. is an electrical company doing business in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com LADIBUGS LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LADIBUGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03714 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Headquartered in Medina, MN, Ladibugs LLC operates the Ladibugs online retail store, as well as the Ladibugs interactive website, https://www.ladibugsinc.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about the company's hair care products. [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 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LASERAWAY MEDICAL: Rowser Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ DARIUS ROWSER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. LASERAWAY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV12529 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2025) is a representative action, pursuant to California Labor Code, on behalf of Plaintiff and certain individuals who are employed by, or were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that during his employment with the Defendant: (i) he did not receive final wages at the time of his termination; (ii) he was required to work without meal and rest periods, nor compensation in lieu thereof; (iii) he was required to work either in excess of eight hours per workday or in excess of 40 hours per workweek without receiving compensation at a rate of one and one half the regular rate of pay; (iv) he was forced to receive inaccurately itemized and deficient wage statements; (v) he did not receive his compensation in accordance with Labor Code in that Defendants failed to issues wages to its employees within 10 calendar days after the pay period ended; (vi) he was not paid in a timely manner pertaining to the waiting time penalties; and (vii) he did not receive reimbursements from the Defendants for reasonable and necessary expenses in the course of his job duties. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of West Hollywood, County of Los Angeles. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. provides services related to aesthetic dermatology with principal place of business in West Hollywood, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com LONG BEACH, CA: Killen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey J. Killen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF LONG BEACH; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV12159 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 24, 2025), is brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") ("PII" and "PHI" shall be collectively referred to hereinafter as "Private Information" unless otherwise specified) that Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to provide in order to obtain residency, employment, and services from the City, and which Plaintiff and Class Members did provide to Defendants as a condition of their relationships and transactions with the City including without limitation: first and last names, dates of birth, credit card information, debit card information, Social Security numbers, driver's license information, passport information, taxpayer identification numbers, biometric data, and medical data. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendants failed to adequately protect, and failed even to encrypt, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. This unencrypted Private Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the utter failure to protect residents', employees', stakeholders', and customers' Private Information. Hackers obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private 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. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on the City's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a resident of the City and provided his Private Information to Defendants as required by Defendants. City Of Long Beach is a chartered city located in Los Angeles County, California and is the second most populous city in Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 239-4778 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com LONG BEACH, CA: Oden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Long Beach. The case is styled as Tomira Oden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The City of Long Beach, Case No. 25STCV13328 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Long Beach -- https://longbeach.gov/ -- is a coastal city and port in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com MASHBURN LLC: Cantwell Sues Over Website's ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASHBURN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02447 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant failed to remove existing access barriers of the website, including a host of broken links, missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages. Moreover, the Defendant failed to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law and City Law. Mashburn, LLC owns and operates the commercial website, www.shopmashburn.com, which offers clothing and accessories for men and women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MDL 3142: Panel Denies Transfer of 11 Suits to E.D. Mich. --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denies the centralization of 11 actions pending in eleven districts to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the multi-district action captioned in "In re: FCA US LLC "Letter 311" Labor Contract Litigation," MDL No. 3142. Plaintiff FCA US LLC (Stellantis) moved to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and the UAW local union defendants oppose centralization and, alternatively, request centralization in the Central District of California. Stellantis brought these actions seeking a declaration that the UAW and its locals had filed grievances and unlawfully threatened mid-contract strikes over its failure to make certain investments in plants in Belvedere, Illinois, and Detroit. It argues that the grievances and threatened strikes are based on a willfully incorrect reading of "Letter 311 U.S. Investment," which is incorporated in the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Letter 311, signed in October 2023, lists investments that Stellantis planned to make in certain facilities, "subject to approval by the Stellantis product Allocation Committee and contingent upon plant performance, changes in market conditions, and consumer demand continuing to generate sustainable and profitable volumes for all of the U.S. Manufacturing facilities." Stellantis asks that damages be awarded if a work stoppage occurs. The actions involve virtually identical allegations and claims, differing only in that each names a different UAW local or locals. In each action, Stellantis seeks a declaration that the union's conduct "expressly conflicts" with the terms of Letter 311 and that any strike would breach the CBA. Stellantis argues that its claims will require discovery of communications between union officials regarding their intent and understandings about the grievances and strike threats, as well as communications by union officials to government officials, media, or others to further the union’s alleged bad faith publicity campaign. Stellantis adds that discovery may involve deposing the highest-ranking officials of both the international and local unions. "It is difficult for us to see why this is so," the panel opines. "The requested relief will turn on the interpretation of Letter 311 and the CBA. These are primarily legal, not factual, issues, whose resolution should require little, if any, discovery." Stellantis's requests for declaratory relief based on the unions' "pending grievances," and damages resulting from "any work stoppage," may be moot, or at least premature, the panel says. The UAW defendants have withdrawn all grievances and have not proceeded with the multi-step process required under the CBA and UAW Constitution before they may strike. Stellantis notes that the grievances were withdrawn without prejudice, but at this point it is a matter of speculation whether any further grievances will be filed and whether any strike will be authorized. Moreover, informal coordination appears feasible since the parties should be able to informally coordinate any discovery that is needed by, for example, cross-noticing depositions, stipulating that discovery be usable in all actions, and seeking orders from the involved courts directing coordination of pretrial efforts, 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-3142-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-25.pdf MDL 3143: 12 Suits Centralized in OpenAI Copyright Infringement Row ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, consolidated four actions from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California and eight actions from the Southern District of New York, all to the the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Sidney H. Stein, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litigation," MDL No. 3143. The OpenaAI Defendants moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that OpenAI and Microsoft used copyrighted works, without consent or compensation, to train their large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, which underlie defendants' generative artificial intelligence products, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Bing Chat (rebranded as Copilot), which can algorithmically simulate human reasoning and inference. Each action will involve overlapping, complex, and voluminous discovery regarding how defendants trained and designed their LLMs. Given the novel and complicated nature of the technology, there likely will be overlapping experts across these actions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly as to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary, rules the panel. Opposing plaintiffs focus on the differences among the claims such as class action cases are brought by authors of novels who allege that their copyrighted works were infringed when defendants used them as input in the training of their LLMs whereas others assert that newspaper articles were infringed both when used as input in the training of defendants' LLMs and by their output, specifically, that their artificial intelligence products generate verbatim and detailed summaries of news content. However, the panel contends that these differences in claims and the underlying material do not present a significant obstacle to centralization given the substantial overlap in factual questions and discovery relating to defendants' training of their LLMs. According to the panel, "The Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Eight of the twelve actions in this docket are already pending in this convenient and accessible venue. Several plaintiffs, as well as Microsoft Corporation, alternatively suggest or do not oppose centralization in the Southern District of New York. Judge Sidney H. Stein, an experienced transferee judge, presides over six of the eight actions in the district. Both he and Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang have devoted substantial time and resources to this litigation, and thus are well situated to steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course." A full-text copy of the court's April 3, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3143-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Pearson Sues Over Deceptive OREO Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAH PEARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01270-WBS-SCR (E.D. Cal., May 2, 2025) seeks to stop Defendant's deceptive marketing and hold Defendant accountable for misleading consumers about the composition and traceability of its OREO products The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's claim that their OREO cookies contain "100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa." is false since Defendant sources the cocoa from a supply chain which mixes the cocoa. Moreover, consumers do not receive OREO cookies made entirely with cocoa from farms in Defendant's Cocoa Life sustainability program. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover all damages and asserts claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, quasi contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, and for violations of the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Mondelez Global, LLC manufactures, markets, and sells chocolate products nationwide, including OREO brand cookies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Nassir, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Ammad Bajwa, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: jnassir@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com abajwa@treehouselaw.com MP2 ENT: Brandi-Vanmeter Must File Response Brief by May 23 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA BRANDI-VANMETER, v. MP2 ENTERPRISES, LLC; BRYANT PETERSON; LAYNE PETERSON; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Nuffer entered an order granting in part and denying in part, as it relates to the suggested briefing schedule, and the deadlines for further briefing are as follows: 1. The Defendant will file an opening brief on or before April 25, 2025, and 2. The Plaintiff will file a response brief on or before May 23, 2025. The Defendants' opening brief shall address and include the following: (i) the franchise agreement or other supporting documentation of Defendants’ affiliate status with Pizza Hut; (ii) supporting evidence of the Defendants policies and procedures during its hiring process; (iii) process and procedures for sending and collecting arbitration agreement signatures (including software/website used for sending and storing the executed arbitration agreements); and (v) any other relevant and responsive information pertaining to communications with potential class members. The Defendants' response that a franchise agreement exists and establishes affiliate status necessitates further briefing. The Plaintiff Rebecca Brandi-Vanmeter filed a Motion to Set Briefing Schedule on the Impact of Defendants' Pre-Certification Discovery Production on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. The Motion seeks an opportunity to address the impact of the arbitration agreements and charts produced by Defendants. The Defendants filed a Response arguing that further briefing is unnecessary. Plaintiff filed a Reply in support of its Motion and in opposition to Defendants’ Response. The request for extended briefing stems from Plaintiff’s motion requesting certification of four Rule 23 subclasses consisting of current and former delivery drivers that worked in Alaska, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. US Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's memorandum decision and order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AdMT0Q at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL DENTAL: Wills Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ---------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02449 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's website contains access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. National Dental Management, LLC owns and operates dental clinics in New York City. The company controls and maintains the website, www.lovenationaldental.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing Bids to Dismiss Due June 16 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and STEVEN SHOWALTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC., NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC., CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, and AB LENDING SPV I LLC, d/b/a Mountain Ridge Capital; Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered a fifth amended case progression order as follows: The Defendants shall file their response to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion by April 17, 2025. The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of motion for class certification by April 24, 2025. A planning conference to discuss case progression, dispositive motions, the parties' interest in settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference settings remains scheduled with the undersigned magistrate judge on April 4, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. by telephone. The deposition deadline, including depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is May 19, 2025. The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is May 19, 2025. Motions to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by June 2, 2025. The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is June 16, 2025. Nebraska Book operates a chain of bookstores. A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Hnn6c at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK ROASTING: Faces Wills Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK ROASTING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02448 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the coffee, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. New York Roasting Company, LLC owns, operates, and controls the website, www.blackfoxcoffee.com, which serves as online store for its specialty coffee offerings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com NORSWOOD LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORSWOOD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02456 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on March 26, 2025 to access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Moreover, the Defendant failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Norswood, LLC owns and operates a restaurant and the website, www.cactuscafetexmex.com, which provides the customers the access to the restaurant's menus, and allows them to place online orders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY: Lofton Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Quinton Lofton, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE NORTH HIGHLAND COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02467-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. North Highland pays Lofton and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. However, North Highland does not pay Lofton and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, North Highland caps their recorded hours at 8 per day, Monday through Friday, regardless of how many hours they work in a workday or workweek (North Highland's "off the clock policy"). Further, North Highland automatically deducts 1 hour a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods" (North Highland's "auto deduction policy"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees are thus not paid for this time. North Highland's off the clock policy, auto deduction policy, and travel policy violate the FLSA by depriving The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of wages, including overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Hourly Employees. North Highland bills itself as "helping clients accelerate their growth initiatives."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303-1007 Phone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com NOW YOU'RE CLEAN: Wills Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOW YOU'RE CLEAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02452 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on January 20, 2025 to access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Now You're Clean, LLC operates a pet grooming salon. The company owns and maintains the website, www.nowyoureclean.com, which allows customers to book grooming pet sessions and to view information about its self-service dog wash stations, professional grooming services, and private event spaces for dog gatherings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 NTH DEGREE: Blandford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Harley Blandford, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NTH DEGREE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02296-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 24, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on December 12 – December 20, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. On December 12 – December 20, 2024, Nth Degree detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including, but not limited to, their name, medical diagnosis, medical treatment information and Social Security Number. The Defendant's failure to safeguard Clients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Georgia law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Clients to safeguard their Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. Defendant's failure to protect Clients' Private Information has harmed and will continue to harm Defendant's Clients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received the Defendant's services from the Defendant. Nth Degree, Inc., is an event management and services company with its principal place of business in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NVIDIA CORP: Class Cert Filing in Iron Workers Due July 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT FUNDS, et al., v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al. (re: NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation), Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Class Certification Filing Deadline: July 11, 2025 Amendment of Pleadings / Joinder: Aug. 22, 2025 Opposition to Class Certification Filing Sept. 11, 2025 Deadline: Reply in Support of Motion for Class Oct. 16, 2025 Certification Filing Deadline: Class Certification Hearing: Nov. 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PUBEIo at no extra charge.[CC] OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Clegg Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Octapharma Plasma, Inc. The case is styled as Christy Clegg, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006438 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Octapharma Plasma, Inc. -- https://www.octapharmaplasma.com/ -- collects, tests and supplies human blood plasma for manufacture into life-saving therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com ORION SYSTEMS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orion Systems Integrators, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Elvia Martinez Hernandez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Orion Systems Integrators, LLC, Assetmark, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13440 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Orion Systems Integrators, LLC -- https://www.orioninc.com/ -- operates as an information technology services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PASLIN COMPANY: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gary C. King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PASLIN COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-11311-JJCG-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 5, 2025), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses or other remuneration as required by the FLSA. As a result of these prima facie FLSA violations, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and those similarly situated for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, interest, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from June 29, 2020 through May 19, 2024 as a non-exempt employee. The Defendant is a Michigan corporation, and its principal place of business is located in Warren, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com PIONEERS MEMORIAL: Esquivel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District. The case is styled as Joe Esquivel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, Case No. 3:25-cv-01165-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pioneers Memorial Hospital -- https://pmhd.org/ -- aims to provide quality healthcare and compassionate service for families of the Imperial Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER: Timmons Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Plastic Surgery Center. The case is styled as Ronald Timmons, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Plastic Surgery Center, Case No. 3:25-cv-03307-MAS-JTQ (D.N.J., April 25, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Plastic Surgery Center is distinguished by the superior knowledge, training, and education of our surgeons.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ P.B.1, P.B.2, P.B.3., by and through their guardian, BRITTANY BRACEY, AND PARIS BRACEY-WRIGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01074-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 29, 2025) is an action seeking to remedy the harms caused by Defendants' failures to adequately and reasonably protect its computer systems and networks, resulting in one of the largest cyberattacks that have impacted K-12 school districts throughout the United States. According to the complaint, the preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on December 28, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' network, accessed and stole sensitive, personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and the class, from Defendants. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others who were harmed by the data breach. The Plaintiffs assert claims for (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) invasion of privacy; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; and (7) declaratory and judgment. Brittany Bracey is the mother and legal guardian of Plaintiffs P.B.1, P.B.2, and P.B.3. Her minor children attend schools in the Darlington County School District in Darlington, South Carolina that use PowerSchool products. PowerSchool Group LLC provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based software to school districts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave., 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com arusi@scott-scott.com PRO-PAK INDUSTRIES: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- DAMEON SULLIVAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Named Plaintiff v. PRO-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00883 (N.D. Ohio, May 2, 2025) arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff Sullivan was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the position of "feeder" beginning in the fall of 2024 until April 7, 2025 at Defendant's facility located in Maumee, OH. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks. However, the Defendant did not fully and properly pay Plaintiff in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and Ohio law for all of their compensable overtime hours worked due at the correct overtime rates as a result of the company-wide policies/practices, says the suit. Headquartered in Maumee, OH, Pro-Pak Industries, Inc. manufactures packaging products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com RAVINE 90 CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAVINE 90 CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03715 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Headquartered in Waterbury, VT, Ravine 90 Corporation owns and operates the website, https://romesnowboards.com/, which provides consumers with access to goods and services including information about its snowboards and outdoor apparel. [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 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Reynolds Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEN REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03569 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law, which have deprived Plaintiff of timely pay. During Plaintiff's employment with REI, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff his wages timely when due. As a result of the untimely payments, Plaintiff forwent the opportunity to invest or otherwise use the money to which he was entitled and he was deprived of the time value of his money, including but not limited to, interest, says the suit. Plaintiff Cortes is employed by REI as a retail employee in New York, where he has worked since 2022. Recreational Equipment, Inc. is a privately-owned corporation that operates almost 200 retail stores in New York and around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 ROUSE SERVICES: Sued Over High Construction Equipment Rental Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN SIGNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUSE SERVICES LLC; RB GLOBAL, INC.; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00158-SMR-WPK (S.D. Iowa, April 29, 2025) is an action against the Defendants seeking treble damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The U.S. construction industry has experienced a significant rise in the cost of renting construction equipment. This increased cost is primarily tracked by the Producer Price Index for construction equipment rental and leasing, which shows a generally upward trajectory for the past decade. The Plaintiff and the class members paid an artificially inflated price for the equipment they rent but for the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The artificially high rental price for construction equipment is a direct result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. Specifically, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants have been using Rouse Service LLC to coordinate their equipment rental pricing and inflate or maintain their equipment rental rates at artificially high level to maximize their profits. The Defendants' conspiracy has benefited themselves, who are reporting record profits in recent years, to the detriment of Plaintiff and other renters of construction equipment. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity -- Rouse Service. By acting collectively through Rouse Service, the Equipment Rental Company Defendants and their co-conspirators eliminate competition among themselves, the suit alleges. Rouse Services LLC provides construction equipment market intelligence solutions such as appraisals, sales and analytics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. Anthony M. Carter, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com SAPUTO INC: Rohde Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- JULIE ROHDE and LORI ZARNEKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAPUTO, INC. and SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-625 (E.D. Wis., April 29, 2025) seeks redress for Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, by requiring the Plaintiffs and other hourly production employees to don their personal protective equipment prior to punching-in, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other hourly production employees for all hours worked and at a rate of one and a half times their normal rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Rohde was hired by Saputo and Saputo USA as a material handler at Defendants' production facility located in Franklin, Wisconsin from October 9, 2023 until September 18, 2024. Plaintiff Zarneke also worked as a production line attendant at Defendants' production facility from November 6, 2023 until August 20, 2024. Saputo, Inc. is one the largest manufacturers of dairy products in the world, and the company maintains annual gross revenue in excess of $12.3 billion.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & FRUCHTER LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com SCOTT EDUCATION: Paster Sues Over Labor Code Breaches ----------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE PASTER, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. SCOTT EDUCATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV12928 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Michelle Paster is a former employee of the Defendant, where she worked as a substitute teacher. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; (3) failing to pay wages due upon termination; (4) failing to reimburse for required business expenses; and (5) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and violating record keeping requirements. Scott Education, Inc. owns and operates an educational staffing agency in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com SUNSET SURGERY: Velez Law Sues Over Defamation and Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- Velez Law Group LLC; Jose C. Velez Colon; E.M.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSET SURGERY AND WOUND CARE LLC; JAVIER MÁRQUEZ GRACIANI; MUNICIPALITY OF MAYAGUEZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-01256 (D.P.R., May 7, 2025), is brought arising from a coordinated and malicious campaign of defamation and retaliation orchestrated by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs following legitimate advocacy efforts to enforce rights protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). After Plaintiff E.M.G., an individual with quadriplegia who requires a wheelchair for mobility, encountered significant accessibility barriers during a bona fide medical visit to Defendants' facility, Plaintiff Velez sent a formal notification of these violations, offering a collaborative 30-day resolution period. Rather than addressing these legitimate accessibility concerns, Defendant Márquez Graciani launched a retaliatory media campaign falsely characterizing Plaintiffs' protected legal activities as "fraud" and a "scheme," falsely claiming that Plaintiffs demanded money, and falsely asserting that Plaintiff Velez faces numerous ethics complaints. This vindictive response to Plaintiffs' good-faith ADA enforcement efforts not only constitutes unlawful retaliation under federal law but has caused substantial damage to Plaintiffs' professional reputations, business operations, and emotional well-being. Additionally, the physical barriers and denial of reasonable accommodations experienced by Plaintiff E.M.G. at Defendants' facility represent textbook violations of both Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, reflecting a troubling disregard for the dignity and legal rights of persons with disabilities, says the complaint. The Velez Law Group LLC is a professional limited liability company and civil rights law firm based in Wyoming with operations in Puerto Rico, Texas and Illinois. Sunset Surgery And Wound Care LLC is a limited liability company organized under Puerto Rico law and is the legal entity that owns, operates, leases, and/or controls the place of public accommodation known as Surgi Wound.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose Carlos Velez Colon, Esq. VELEZ LAW GROUP LLC Civil Rights Division 4204 Six Forks Rd, Apt 1209 Raleigh, NC 27609-6427 Phone: (787)-422-1881 Email: vlg@velezlawgroup.com SWISSKLIP USA: Hedges Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWISSKLIP USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03673 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings her civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services, says the suit. Based in Wilmington, DE, Swissklip USA, Inc. owns and operates the commercial website, https://swissklip.com, which serves as an online retail store offering nail and footcare products. [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 Telephone: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TA OUTFITTERS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TA Outfitters, LLC. The case is styled as Tawnya Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TA Outfitters, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.TERRITORYAHEAD.COM, Case No. 25CU021904C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., April 25, 2025). TA Outfitters, LLC is a retail establishment based in Blue Ash, Ohio, specializing in outdoor gear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com TAKE A BREAK: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Hill, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TAKE A BREAK TRAVEL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00788 (D. Nev., May 5, 2025), is brought for unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") Chapter 608 and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). During a regularly scheduled workweek, therefore, Plaintiff was scheduled to work at least 5.5 hours qualifying for daily overtime. These daily overtime hours were Plaintiff's scheduled hours from 9:00 AM to 2:30 PM on Wednesdays. Despite these scheduled daily overtime hours, and despite working these daily overtime hours, Defendants never paid Plaintiff for any daily overtime worked. The last time this occurred was during the pay period from April 24 to 30, 2023, which was Plaintiff's penultimate workweek. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work 42 hours per week, and typically worked 40 to 45 hours per workweek, Defendant recorded and paid weekly overtime to Plaintiff only twice during her 56 pay periods of employment for Take A Break. The Defendant thus did not accurately record or pay Plaintiff for all hours that she worked. Defendant systematically underreported and underpaid Plaintiff for all hours that she worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Take A Break as a non-exempt hourly employee in Clark County, Nevada. Take A Break is a self-proclaimed "leader in the travel industry, providing exciting vacation packages and travel experiences to families at exceptional pricing."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Rachel Mariner, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Phone: (725) 245-6056 Fax: (725) 220-1802 Email: jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: UFCW Balks at Generic Drug Dexilant Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TWI PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and TWI PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03734 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2025) challenges a horizontal conspiracy and agreement among Defendants to restrain competition in the United States market for the pharmaceutical product Dexilant (dexlansoprazole) and its AB-rated generic equivalents. According to the complaint, the Defendants, competing pharmaceutical manufacturers, entered into a "reverse payment agreement," whereby a patent holder pays an alleged or potential infringer to stay off the market, not to challenge its patents, or otherwise not to compete with the patent holder in the market for the patented product. Rather than compete, Takeda and TWi entered a reverse-payment settlement to unlawfully prolong Takeda's monopoly and to grant TWi a temporary monopoly over the sale of generic Dexilant, a treatment for erosive esophagitis and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, also known as GERD. Specifically, on or around April 27, 2015, Takeda and TWi reached an anticompetitive agreement in which TWi agreed to delay launching a generic version of Takeda's Dexilant product until January of 2022, approximately 18 months after the expiration date of the single patent blocking TWi from entering the market. To compensate TWi for its agreement to forgo competing with branded Dexilant, Takeda paid off TWi in at least two ways: first, Takeda paid TWi $9.5 million in cash; and second, Takeda gave TWi the option to launch either an authorized generic version of Dexilant or its own ANDA product, knowing that TWi would choose the former because doing so would ensure that only one generic version of the drug came to market rather than two, says the suit. This action seeks overcharge damages and related relief to redress Takeda's and TWi's alleged unlawful conduct, which prevented free and fair competition and caused Plaintiff and members of the End-Payor Class to pay substantial overcharges on both branded and generic Dexilant. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Caroline Yuen, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cyuen@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - Domenico Minerva, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0887 E-mail: dminerva@labaton.com TAPESTRY INC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tapestry, Inc. The case is styled as Jovanny Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13470 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Tapestry, Inc. -- https://www.tapestry.com/ -- is an American multinational fashion holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com TECH DIGITAL: Vongdara Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Delee Vongdara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TECH DIGITAL CORPORATION; BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY; AND DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25CU010321C was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01168-H-AHG. The Complaint purports to assert claims against BD for: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked and/or Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the Proper Overtime Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices, in Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Eric M. Fox, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com eric.fox@ogletree.com TOWN OF BROWNSBURG: Adams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Adams, Jacob Alvarez, Aaron Atherton, Dakota Bain, Trent Ballew, Landon Boehm, Alex Brand, David Brock, Justin Butts, Kevin Byron, Christopher Carter, Joshua Christensen, Marcus Davis, Thad Dolzall, Daniel Dowell, Kyle Edie, Damien Eppes, Brandon Ford, Jeremy Fox, Britani Frederickson, Lance Goldsberry, Tim Griffith, Max Hellmann, Kamrick Holding, Daniel Huber, Gage Hunt, George Ignas, Matthew Johnson, Douglas Joiner, Brandon Kingery, Jeffrey Kish, Justin Knox, Martin Lauer, Tyler Lawrence, Christopher Laws, William Lawson, Todd Macy, Levi Marshall, Keondre Mccartney, John Michalke, Christopher Miller, Ryan Miller, Austin Mills, Brendan Mitchell, Weston Moon, John Nelson, Kyler Nivens, Johnathan Northern, Ethan Patton, Brandon Perisho, Jeremy Peter, Christian Reynolds, Adam Roach, Dave Roeckel, Andrew Roembke, Donald Ross, Tyler Ross, Mason Sanquentti, Ross Sergi, Robert Stringer, Shannon Wallace, Kristofer Wayman, Kevin Whitt, Jordan Wiles, David Winegar, Jonathan Zajicek, and John Zeunik, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOWN OF BROWNSBURG, INDIANA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00867-MPB-KMB (S.D. Ind., May 5, 2025), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs, while employed by Defendant Brownsburg as BFT fire fighters, are scheduled to work one, twenty-four-hour shift followed by forty-eight hours off. This work cycle is repeated throughout the year, with every third work cycle involving additional work hours for Plaintiffs. Through this mutually agreed upon schedule, Plaintiffs regularly work at least 216 or 240 hours every 28-day period. The Defendant Brownsburg, however, refuses to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for any amount of time worked over 212 hours during their 28-day FLSA work period. For example, during the FLSA work period in January 2023, Plaintiff David Brock worked 244 hours but failed to receive overtime wages for 32 of his work hours. The Defendant Brownsburg's overtime payment practices affect all Plaintiffs in that Defendant regularly fails to pay Plaintiffs overtime wages for the overtime hours that Plaintiffs have worked. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are owed overtime wages as part of their regularly scheduled work hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Defendant Brownsburg. Brownsburg operates the Brownsburg Fire Territory ("BFT"), which is the municipal department responsible for providing fire suppression and emergency medical services to the Brownsburg, Indiana area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Duncan, Esq. RUCKELSHAUS KAUTZMAN BLACKWELL BEMIS & DUNCAN, LLP 135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-634-4356 Fax: 317-634-8635 Email: ard@rkblegalgroup.com - and - Sammy Y. Sugiura, Esq. Khadeja Tipu, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1620 Eye Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-783-0010 Fax: 202-7883-6088 Email: ssugiura@mooneygreen.com ktipu@mooneygreen.com TRUE CLASSIC TEES: Lopez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Classic Tees LLC. The case is styled as Winston Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. True Classic Tees LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22107-BB (S.D. Fla., May 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. True Classic Tees LLC -- https://www.trueclassictees.com/ -- produce butter soft, affordable, high quality fitted premium tees for men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com UNIQLO USA: Faces Welcome Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- KIARA WELCOME, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQLO USA LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03567 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and retail employees in New York who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the FLSA to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions which have deprived Plaintiff and the class of their lawfully earned wages and to remedy violations of the NYLL which have deprived Plaintiff of timely pay. The Plaintiff was employed by Uniqlo as a retail employee in New York from approximately September 2017 through March 2020. Uniqlo USA Ltd. is a privately-owned company that operates retail stores in New York and around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Dickie Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert E. Dickie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2506469 was removed from the Superior Court of State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01086. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; Failure to Indemnify; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Justin J. Jackson, 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 jujackson@seyfarth.com - and - Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com V.I.P. INC: Fedorchuk Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maksym Fedorchuk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. V.I.P., INC., d/b/a/ VIP TIRES AND SERVICE, Case No. 2584-CV-00061-BLS1 was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-11257. The Plaintiff bought tires, a tire warranty, and an alignment service from a VIP store in Brookline, Massachusetts in the spring of 2024. He claims that the VIP tire warranty (called "Tire Maintenance Plus") did not provide meaningful protection beyond the tire manufacturer's warranty that came automatically with the tires, the alignment was not performed on all four tires, his tires were manufactured more than a year before he bought them (and therefore were not "new"), he was deceptively charged a "shop fee," and he was improperly induced to patronize VIP based on online reviews.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Federal Street, Suite 2620 Boston, MA 02110-2012 Phone: 617-531-1411 Facsimile: 617-531-1602 Email: tsullivan@shb.com VIA TRANSPORTATION: Michal Sues Over Worker Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------- ERICKA MICHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIA TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03692 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) arises form Defendant's unlawful misclassification policy and practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a driver for Defendant from approximately May 2024 to January 2025. The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40-hours per week but was not paid overtime wages for all hours she worked since Defendant misclassified her as an independent contractor. In addition, the Defendant also failed to keep accurate records of all hours worked by her and the Class members, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in New York, NY, Via provides software and operational support to improve public transportation networks, essentially creating a platform to manage on-demand shared ride services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Sarmiento, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA dba VITAS HEALTHCARE; VITAS HME SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV08942 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 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04025. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com WALGREEN CO: Faces Caballero Suit Over Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- JUAN RODRIGO CABALLERO, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN, CO., an Illinois corporation, DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV12912 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 2, 2025) alleges the Defendant of violating California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Plaintiff Caballero worked for Defendant as a customer sales associate in Los Angeles, CA, for over four years, until his separation from employment March 2024. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to maintain a compliant meal and rest period policies and practices. Among other things, the Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees in accordance with Labor Code. Walgreen, Co. is a retail pharmacy and healthcare company that sells medicine, health and beauty products, offers pharmacy services, and digital services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. Hilary Silvia, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com hilary@koullaw.com WINGS FINANCIAL CREDIT: Gahm Suit Removed to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Debra Gahm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wings Financial Credit Union, Case No. 62-CV-23-00574 was removed from the Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-02017-JRT-JFD. The original Class Action Complaint alleged state law claims for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as well as unjust enrichment and a claim based on Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lisa M. Lamm Bachman, Esq. Paul W. Magyar, Esq. FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP 250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 540 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 338-8788 Fax: (612) 338-8690 Email: llammbachman@foleymansfield.com pmagyar@foleymansfield.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Quinn Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN QUINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00679 (D. Conn., April 29, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information and protected health information including, inter alia, names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, race or ethnicity, Social Security numbers, information as to patient types, and medical record numbers. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information collected and stored by Defendant was accessed and acquired by unauthorized third parties during a data breach that occurred on or around March 8, 2025. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic, standard security procedures, Plaintiff's and similarly situated patients' PII and PHI have been compromised by cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. provides healthcare services in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Patrick D. Donathen, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com patrick@lcllp.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,653 PI Claims as of March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Albany International Corp. is defending 3,653 claims as of March 31, 2025, in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2025, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,062 claims at a total cost of $10.6 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeOcoj ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ic1Qjx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has 41 Open Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., for the six months ended March 31, 2025 and March 31, 2024, has reported 41 and 42 open claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yOOwTM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any period. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIsKYk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage. However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YT0VGn ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At March 31, 2025, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cUvxgP ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 887 Exposure Claims -------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation, for three months ended April 4, 2025 and March 29, 2024, has received 887 and 1,297 claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Certain entities are the legal obligor, or owner, for certain asbestos obligations including long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos obligations of the Company's legacy industrial businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. "These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the number of cases has steadily declined, except for 2024 when they were substantially even versus prior year. The Company expects such settlement value fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment to plaintiffs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cmqeVW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Faces 57 New Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products they sold were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2025, there were 84 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 273 cases as of June 30, 2024. During the nine months ended March 31, 2025, 57 new cases were filed and 246 cases were resolved by settlement or voluntary dismissal (including pursuant to the cases that were settled in the talcum litigation settlement agreements described below). "Due to the rising number of cases against the Company, as well as the evolving litigation landscape, there is an expectation that claims may increase in the future. In order to mitigate our future exposure, from the end of August 2024 through October 2024, the Company reached agreements with certain plaintiff law firms (collectively, the "talcum litigation settlement agreements") for: (i) the resolution of over 200 pending cosmetic talcum powder matters handled by those firms as well as (ii) a process for resolving potential future cosmetic talcum powder claims expected to be brought on behalf of plaintiffs by those firms from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029, with annual capped amounts per year for each participating law firm. "To account for the talcum litigation settlement agreements, the Company recorded a charge of $159 million during the fiscal 2025 first quarter for the amount agreed to settle the current and potential future claims (amounts recorded for potential future claims is based on the best estimate of the probable loss and a reasonably possible loss beyond the amounts recorded is not expected to be material). As of March 31, 2025, $23 million is recorded in Other accrued liabilities and $89 million is recorded in Other noncurrent liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet related to the talcum litigation settlement agreements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FuluCN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because such liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oiY0Xr ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------- IDEX Corporation and eight of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These components were acquired from third party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hb7qZ2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,261 Asbestos Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of March 31, 2025, was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately 1,261 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 39 claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in asbestos cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,122 of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,020 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XBbFBU ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 602 New Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc., for the three months ended March 31, 2025 and 2024, has received approximately 602 and 783 new asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC’s employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iJbNzJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Parsons Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Management believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A liability is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability using the low end of the range unless some amount within the range of loss appears at that time to be a better estimate than any other amount in the range. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance policies. Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results of operations or the Company's financial position. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qyOvh ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $44MM Reserves as of March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc., as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, has reported total asbestos-related reserves of $44 million and $45 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company believes that, based on presently available information, the total reserves for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims. The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed, dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (viii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate outcome of the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JTPuwF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 497 Claims as of March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rogers Corporation has recorded 497 claims outstanding as of March 31, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s. Most of the claims filed against us involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred. In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum against multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or used asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were allegedly exposed and from which they purportedly suffered injury. Most of these cases are being litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and New York; however, we are also defending cases in other states. We continue to vigorously defend these cases, primarily on the basis of the plaintiffs' inability to establish compensable loss as a result of exposure to our products. The indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related product liability litigation to date have been substantially covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VvIbFW ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Reports 1,195 Pending Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., at March 31, 2025, had approximately 1,195 cases outstanding for which they may be responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2025, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately $96 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we face. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our pending claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average future settlement values. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=di1rbT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Certain indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of Trane Technologies plc has been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hzsp11 ********* 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 ***