250519.mbx

250519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 99 Headlines 7 CUPS: Falsely Affiliates With Mental Health Providers, Suit Says ABM INDUSTRY: Filing of Reply Brief Due May 19 ALEJANDRO ABREU: US Lighting Shareholders Suit Removed to E.D. Ohio AMAZON.COM INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 14 ARIZONA BOARD: Anderson Sues Over Equal Pay Act Violation BAMTECH LLC: Allen Bids to Compel Arbitration in Privacy Suit BANDAI NAMCO: Discloses Personal Viewing Info, Garcia Alleges BILTMORE INSURANCE: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BUCHANAN MINERALS: McCoy Sues Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice CABINET TREE: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Calif. Consumer Class Suit COLSON GROUP: Spratley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation COMERICA BANK: Must Oppose Sparkman Class Cert Bid by May 19 COMMUNITY HOB AUTOMOTIVE: Anyana Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas CS CONTRACT: Must File Class Cert Response by May 19 CUATRO LOBOS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says CULINARY SERVICES: Daniel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DAVITA INC: Reid Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Disclosure ECOBAT RESOURCES: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz's Loses Bid to Certify Class EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 15, 2026 FCA US LLC: 3rd Circuit Dismisses Fraud Claims Appeal FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Florida FORD MOTOR: Frankowski Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOLDENTRUST INSURANCE: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida GOODRX INC: Ritchie Pharmacy Alleges Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Padilla Suit Over Hidden, Junk Fees H & G FRANCHISING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says HAMILTON POINT: Tucker Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma HAPI ENTERPRISES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARBHAJAN DADWAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Brush Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Owens Sues Over Misleading Sale Price Ads HOME DEPOT: Faces Simmons Suit Over Damage Protection Fees HOME STAR: Schlosser Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: Krull Sues Over Deceptive Practices HORIZON BEHAVIORAL: Banks Files Suit in W.D. Virginia HORIZON OPPORTUNITES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stratton Says HOUZZ INC: Carr Sues Over Misleading Automatic Renewal ICOOL LLC: Acar Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages IL SOLE: Grisales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages INDEPENDENT FUNDING: Samo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California J.J.F. MANAGEMENT: Henry Files Suit in D. Maryland KAISER FOUNDATION: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bell Files Suit in D. Maryland KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mejia Says KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Wargas Files Suit in D. Maryland KKW TRUCKING INC: Hogner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LAD-P LLC: Davoodi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LAKELAND CARE: Morrow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL: Barlow Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII LG ELECTRONICS USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LIFEWAVE INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon LINDE INC: Townsend Suit Removed to C.D. California LIVONIA, MI: Faces Suit Over Ordinance Selective Enforcement LULAV PROPERTIES: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages MAISON CLOSE: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MASS GENERAL: $8.25MM Class Settlement in Norton Gets Initial Nod MATTHEW WEISS: Doe Files Suit in N.D. Ohio MDL 3114: Remand of Phillips Action Back to S.D. Fla. Denied MDL 3114: Two Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Privacy Row MDL 3126: Wright Suit Consolidated in Data Breach Row in Montana MDL 3128: Snider Action Conditional Transfer Order Vacated MONGOLIAN OPERATING: Flores Sues to Seek Minimum, Overtime Wage NEW YORK, NY: Unlawfully Detained Cyclists, Esparza Alleges NIDECKER US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Alleges OAK HARBOR FREIGHT: Ernest Suit Removed to E.D. California OREGON: Washington Files Suit in D. Oregon POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Richland County Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: S.H. Suit Transferred to S.D. California POWERSCHOOL GROUP: St. Croix Falls Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Uniondale Union Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: West Hempstead Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. R AND M PLUMBING: Schulte Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RAMKO INJECTION: Ranjbari Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Manadero Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ROCHELLE AZOFF: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROOTS PROPERTIES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property SAINT JAMES: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SCHEDULE VIEWER: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SEACREST SERVICES: Callanan Sues Over Unpaid Compensations SEVILLE RESTAURANT: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SEVILLE RESTAURANT: Marquina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Biscovich Sues Over Recalled Pressure Cookers SNAP FINANCE: Faces Esquivel Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages SP PLUS: Faces Mejia Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. STARFIELD LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property TOKIO MARINE: Acosta Suit Removed to C.D. California TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Chowning Sues Over Ticketmaster-Style Junk Fees U CALMING CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says UNITED HEALTHCARE: Must Produce Pay Data to Plaintiffs by May 28 UNITED STATES: Wazee's Motion to Amend Suit Denied UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Faller Suit Over Stock Price Drop VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Boykins Suit Removed to C.D. California WALGREEN CO: Tucker Suit Removed to N.D. California YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Wu Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info YALE NEW HAVEN: Mortensen Alleges Inadequate Data Security ********* 7 CUPS: Falsely Affiliates With Mental Health Providers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ZAMIRA CASTRO, TRACI CAMPBELL, FRANCESCA GIORDANO, STEPHANIE KELLY, and SHEILA ADDISON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 7 CUPS OF TEA, CO., Case No. 1:25-cv-02563 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant falsely affiliates with tens of thousands of mental health providers for financial gain. Accordingly, this creates the impression that these "hundreds of profiles" of therapists are affiliated with 7 Cups. In reality, the vast majority of mental health providers -- likely numbering in the tens of thousands -- are listed on the 7 Cups website without their consent. 7 Cups directs users searching for a mental health provider to their "provider directory," which appears to include an extensive network of mental health providers affiliated with 7 Cups for users to be able to "find a therapist." Approximately 20 percent of adults in the United States report living with mental illness. Of the nearly 50 million adults with a mental illness nationwide, over half go untreated. In New York, over 1.6 million of the 3 million adults who have a mental illness do not receive treatment. In reality, Cups does not provide free therapy, and the vast majority of mental health providers listed on 7 Cups' "provider directory" have no affiliation whatsoever with 7 Cups, asserts the suit. Individuals who visit the 7 Cups website need mental health treatment. Instead of providing that care, 7 Cups harms this vulnerable population of people in need. 7 Cups willfully and knowingly misappropriates mental health providers' names and reputations for an age-old reason: to increase their profits. Mental health providers like Plaintiffs are deeply troubled to discover that 7 Cups is profiting from their names and reputations and misdescribing their services. 7 Cups misleads and confuses individuals in need of mental health care, the suit adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement of the Defendant's profits, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 7 Cups is a company that purports to help address the crisis in access to mental health care by providing "free online therapist & counseling" and by hosting a "provider directory" with tens of thousands of mental health providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara Haviva Mark, Esq. MARK HEALTH LAW PLLC 909 Third Avenue No. 792 New York, NY 10150 Telephone: (646) 504-1850 E-mail: sara@markhealthlaw.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law ABM INDUSTRY: Filing of Reply Brief Due May 19 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFREN LINARES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order to adjust scheduling order: The Plaintiff's reply brief in support of class certification is due by May 19, 2025 (previously May 5, 2025). The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification on Dec. 16, 2024. The Parties previously stipulated to, and the Court approved, three extensions on the Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to class certification. ABM Industry provides facility services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jgsff5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Code Bolce, Esq. Gonzalo Quezada Jr., Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com cbolce@themmlawfirm.com gquezada@themmlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Paul M. Smith, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINES, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239- 9045 E-mail: Alexander.chemers@ogletree.com Paul.smith@ogletree.com ALEJANDRO ABREU: US Lighting Shareholders Suit Removed to E.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shareholders of US Lighting Group, Inc., and all others similarly situated v. ALEJANDRO ABREU, et al., Case No. CV 25 114062 was removed from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Please, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00932-DAP. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims against an employee of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio. The Attorney General, through the Acting United States Attorney, has certified that Defendant Abreu was acting within the scope of his federal employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rema A. Ina, Esq. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse 801 West Superior Avenue, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113-1852 Phone: (216) 622-3600 Facsimile: (216) 522-4982 Email: Rema.Ina@usdoj.gov AMAZON.COM INC: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 14 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, JOLENE FURDEK, and JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding sealing of class certification briefing. Motion for class certification and supporting expert reports: May 14, 2025 Filing of public versions of class certification papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal: June 11, 2025 Opposition to motion for class certification and supporting expert reports: Aug. 14, 2025 Filing of public versions of opposition to class certification and corresponding motion(s) to seal: Sept. 11, 2025 Reply in support of motion for class certification and reply expert reports: Nov. 14, 2025 Filing of public versions of class certification papers and corresponding motion(s) to seal: Dec. 12, 2025 The Parties have met and conferred with respect to the upcoming briefing on class certification, and anticipate that their briefs, declarations, exhibits, and expert reports will quote from and/or describe in detail a significant amount of information that has been designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only by either a Party or Non-Party. Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated appropriately under the applicable protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court, the Parties, and Non-Parties, pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g), the Parties and their respective counsel stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with the class certification briefing, subject to the Court's approval. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5sgDt8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Theodore Wojcik, Esq. Meredith Simons, Esq. Ben Harrington, Esq. Benjamin Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com bens@hbsslaw.com tedw@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA, 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com maryannalmeida@dwt.com - and - Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Esq. Benjamin M. Mundel, Esq. Jon Dugan, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 E-mail: jnuechterlein@sidley.com jdugan@sidley.com bmundel@sidley.com - and - Mark S. Parris, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 Facsimile: (206) 839-4301 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com - and - Mark A. Perry, Esq. Brian G. Liegel, Esq. Eric S. Hochstadt, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 2001 M. Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 E-mail: mark.perry@weil.com brian.liegel@weil.com morgan.macbride@weil.com eric.hochstadt@weil.com ARIZONA BOARD: Anderson Sues Over Equal Pay Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Sumlee Anderson, Sonia Calderon, and Michelle Curiel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS; and THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GLOBAL CAMPUS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01189-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2025), is brought against the Defendants in violation of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") by paying women, including Plaintiffs, less than men. The Defendants paid women, including Plaintiffs, less than a man or men. In 2024, for example, each Plaintiff was paid less than numerous men for the same job. Twenty-five men were paid more than Curiel. Twelve men were paid more than Calderon. And four men were paid more than Anderson. The Defendants also paid women, on average, less than men in each of these jobs. For example, in 2024, women in the Senior ESA job were paid $14,425.94 less, on average, than men; women in the ESA job were paid $4,745.23 less, on average, than men. The Defendants cannot justify paying Plaintiffs or Collective Action Members less than a man or men because Defendants used a prohibited factor--prior pay--when setting their starting pay around August 2022, and this, at a minimum, contributed to the pay disparities for women. To meet their burden, Defendants must show the reasons they "in fact" used to determine pay to justify the pay disparities. The Defendants have known they paid Plaintiffs and Collective Action Members less than men in substantially equal jobs since Defendants hired these women from Zovio around August 1, 2022. Defendants, however, have not taken reasonable steps to address these disparities, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are currently employed by Defendants. ABOR governs and controls the University of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Byron Goldstein, Esq. David Browne, Esq. BROWNE EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1446 Front Street, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-930-9440 Email: byron@browneemploymentlawyers.com david@browneemploymentlawyers.com - and - William Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq. Sarah Abraham, Esq. THE JHAVERI-WEEKS FIRM, P.C. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-463-8097 Fax: 415-367-1439 Email: wjw@jhaveriweeks.com sa@jhaveriweeks.com BAMTECH LLC: Allen Bids to Compel Arbitration in Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled TOMMY ALLEN and 355 other individuals, Petitioners v. BAMTECH, LLC; DISNEY PLATFORM DISTRIBUTION, INC. (d/b/a Disney Streaming Services, LLC); ESPN, INC.; and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY (d/b/a Disney Platform Distribution, Inc.), Respondents, Case No. 2:25-cv-03861, the Petitioners files a motion to compel arbitration against the Defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 30, 2025. The Petitioners are current or former ESPN+ subscribers who are attempting to arbitrate individual claims against Respondents for their disclosure of Petitioners' personally identifiable information and video viewing history to unrelated third parties without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and equivalent state laws. The Petitioners agreed to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration administered by JAMS Mediation, Arbitration and ADR Services per the Arbitration Provision in the ESPN+ SA. The Petitioners here seek to do exactly what the Operative ESPN+ SA requires them to do and precisely what Respondents have argued in at least three class actions with substantially similar claims and identical arbitration provisions -- have their claims against Respondents decided by a JAMS arbitrator. BAMTech, LLC is an indirect subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company which jointly operates and maintains the ESPN+ services and platform with Disney Platform Distribution, Inc.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Jonathan Waisnor, Esq. James Fee, Esq. Alexander Schlow, Esq. Woodworth Winmill, Esq. Stephen Kenny, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, Floor 34 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jwaisnor@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com aschlow@labaton.com wwinmill@labaton.com BANDAI NAMCO: Discloses Personal Viewing Info, Garcia Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL JESSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANDAI NAMCO ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00967 (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2025) is a class action against Bandai for repeated, systematic, and willful violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Accordingly, the Defendant shares Personal Viewing Information -- i.e., customers' unique Facebook ID (FID) and specific video game purchase information -- together as one data point to Facebook. Because the customer's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook user account, Facebook -- or any other party with access to this data -- can quickly and easily link this information to the customer's corresponding Facebook profile. Bandai's actions represent a significant privacy breach, enabling Facebook to compile detailed profiles of individuals' video game purchasing habits for targeted advertising purposes, without users' knowledge or permission. Such disclosures of personally identifiable information have been found to state a viable claim under the VPPA, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff is an individual who is over 18 years old and a citizen of the State of California. Mr. Garcia is a subscriber of Defendant's Website who has viewed and purchased video games on the Website while logged into his Facebook account. Bandai is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 23 Odyssey, Irvine, California 92618. Bandai Namco is a subsidiary of Bandai Namco Holdings Inc., a Japanese multinational video game publisher and developer with global operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mickel M. Arias, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com craig@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com BILTMORE INSURANCE: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biltmore Insurance Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Biltmore Insurance Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22125-DPG (S.D. Fla., May 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Biltmore Insurance Services -- https://www.biltmoreins.com/ -- offers insurance for households, businesses, and vehicles, with offices in Georgia, Florida, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com BUCHANAN MINERALS: McCoy Sues Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA McCOY, JOEY HILL, TIMOTHY VANCE and WILLIAM STILTNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. BUCHANAN MINERALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00028-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., April 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Defendant employs hundreds of workers at a coal mine in Buchanan County, Virginia. On or about April 28, 2025, with no notice at all, the Defendant terminated approximately 140 employees, including Plaintiffs, effective immediately. According to the complaint, the terminations met the definition of a "plant closure" under the WARN Act, and notice should have been given. This action seeks the remedies provided under the WARN Act for Defendant's violations. One of the Plaintiffs, Joshua McCoy, was a full-time employee of Defendant until he was terminated, effective April 28, 2025. Specifically, Plaintiff McCoy was a full-time employee of Defendant for more than six months prior to April 28, 2025. Buchanan Minerals, LLC is a company that owns and operates the Buchanan Mine #1, an underground coal mine in Buchanan County, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexis I. Tahinci, Esq. TAHINCI LAW FIRM, PLLC 105 Ford Avenue, Suite 3 Kingsport, TN 37663 Telephone: (423) 406-1151 E-mail: alexis@tahincilaw.com - and - Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com - and - John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC P.O. Box 1746 Lexington, KY 40588 Telephone: (859) 866-3097 E-mail: John@EmploymentLawKY.com CABINET TREE: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Magali Salgado Martinez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Cabinet Tree Studio LLC., and Cabinet Tree Studio LLC., d/b/a Harris Cabinetry, Robert Harris and Chris Harris, Case No. 1:25-cv-05126 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (hereinafter "IMWL") and the Illinois Classification Act ("ICA") and brings these causes of action against Defendant who did not pay Plaintiff, and/or the Collective Members, minimum wages, overtime wages, and/or all owed wages due under the FLSA and/or IMWL and/or the ICA. The Plaintiff (and collective) were misclassified as "independent contractors" by Defendants, and should have been classified and paid as employees. Plaintiff (and collective) were not paid time and half for overtime work, rather were paid straight time for overtime work hours. Plaintiff (and collective) were misclassified and worked in the construction industry in the state of Illinois thus Defendants violated the ICA via that misclassification of employees as "Independent Contractors" in the construction industry. The Plaintiff presents this claim as a collective action via allegations under the FLSA. Plaintiff was an employee who worked for Defendants at its suburban Chicago Illinois location during the relevant time period, and she was denied her clearly-established rights under applicable federal and state statutes. As a result of the practices of Defendants described herein, Defendants failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff, as well as those persons similarly-situated minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and IMWL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an employee and or "Independent Contractor" for Defendants' at their place of business located in the State of Illinois. Cabinet Tree is a corporation which operates a remodeling/ construction business in Plainfield, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin ILL 60177 Phone: 630-464-9675 Fax: 630-206-0889 CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Calif. Consumer Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Celsius Holdings 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 California Consumer class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 22, 2025, the Company and certain individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all Celsius purchasers, that plaintiff and other class members were misled regarding the alleged financial relationship between Celsius and the individual defendants, who allegedly promoted the Company's products on social media. The complaint asserts claims for (i) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, (ii) unjust enrichment, and (iii) negligent misrepresentation. The Company believes that the claims asserted in this putative class action are without merit and that the likelihood of loss is remote. However, the ultimate outcome of these actions may differ materially from the Company's current expectations, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of losses at this time. The Company will vigorously defend itself against this allegation. Celsius is a company in the functional energy drink and liquid supplement categories based in Florida. COLSON GROUP: Spratley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tanisha Spratley, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COLSON GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05098 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025), is brought 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 are entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 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 did not include Defendant's Performance Bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration for overtime rates 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 began working for Defendant in October 2024, as a non-exempt, hourly employee, and is currently employed with Defendant. The Defendant is a global manufacturer of caster, wheel and mobility solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com COMERICA BANK: Must Oppose Sparkman Class Cert Bid by May 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, a foreign corporation, and CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order resetting case scheduling deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Opposition to class certification motion: May 19, 2025 Reply to class certification motion: June 2, 2025 Hearing on class certification motion: June 26, 2025 at 1:00 p.m Last day for hearing dispositive motions: Aug. 14, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. Pretrial Conference: Oct. 15, 2025 at 2:00 p.m Jury Trial: Nov. 3, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. Comerica offers saving and current account, investment, financial services, online banking, and loan facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t1QXSJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com jrezaie@terrellmarshall.com - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: srios@bm.net - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net The Defendants are represented by: Jenny N. Perkins, Esq. Colin P. Kane, Esq. Mitchell Turbenson, Esq. Elizabeth Wingfield, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Telephone: (215) 665-8500 E-mail: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com kanec@ballardspahr.com turbensonm@ballardspahr.com wingfielde@ballardspahr.com - and - John C. Grugan, Esq. Ana Dragojevic, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 252-9610 E-mail: john.grugan@hklaw.com ana.dragojevic@hklaw.com COMMUNITY HOB AUTOMOTIVE: Anyana Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Hob Automotive, LLC. The case is styled as Villanueva Anyana, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Community Hob Automotive, LLC doing business as: Community Honda, Case No. 3:25-cv-00139 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Community Hob Automotive, LLC doing business as Community Honda -- https://www.mycommunityhonda.com/ -- offer all the auto services, maintenance, and parts needed to keep vehicle running like new.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CS CONTRACT: Must File Class Cert Response by May 19 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RUSSELL on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CS CONTRACT SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a CONEXA TECHNOLOGIES, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02421-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time, up to and including May 19, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The Plaintiff filed his Cert. Motion on March 14, 2025. Conexa is a technology provider for power electronics, specialist cable and IoT solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etMNWA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Dennis M. McClelland, Esq. Jason A. Pill, Esq. Wesley D. Thorp, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000 Tampa, FL 33602-5315 Telephone: (813) 472-7550 Facsimile: (813) 472-7570 E-mail: dennis.mcclelland@phelps.com jason.pill@phelps.com wesley.thorp@phelps.com CUATRO LOBOS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CUATRO LOBOS, INC, Case No 1:25-cv-03797 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) alleges that the Cuatro failed 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 in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Because Defendant's Website has never been equally accessible, and because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the Website to become and remain accessible, the Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. section 12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist the Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant's Website. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com CULINARY SERVICES: Daniel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CULINARY SERVICES OF AMERICA INC. The case is styled as Elie A. Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CULINARY SERVICES OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 25STCV12344 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)." Culinary Services of America is a staffing firm specializing in the food service industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara Street Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law DAVITA INC: Reid Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- IVAN THOMAS REID, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVITA, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01362-CYC (D. Colo., April 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly safeguard the private information and private health information that Defendant's clients entrusted to it as a condition of receiving services. On April 12, 2025, DVA became aware aware of a ransomware incident that has encrypted certain elements of our network. This data breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of the personal identifiable information and personal health information of Plaintiff and the Class Members. The Defendant collected and maintained the private information of Plaintiffs and putative Class Members, who are current/former clients of Defendant. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. DaVita, Inc. is a healthcare provider that offers dialysis and integrated health care management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Telephone: (312) 894-0130 E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com ECOBAT RESOURCES: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecobat Resources California, Inc. The case is styled as Byron R. Mendez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ecobat Resources California, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13509 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ecobat -- https://ecobat.com/ -- is the global leader in the production of lead and lead alloys, mainly from recycled sources.[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 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences Corp. 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 Patel securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") complaint against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al., No. 24-cv-02221. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding our business prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs and other fees. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the Securities Class Action or estimate a range of possible exposure; therefore, no amounts have been accrued. The Company intends to defend itself against the lawsuits vigorously. Edwards is an international company that researches, develops, provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring solutions.[BN] EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz's Loses Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Alternatively, the Court denies the Plaintiff Schultz's motion to certify class. The Defendant Emory University's motion to de-certify Class is denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Accordingly, Schultz has failed to meet his burden to identify a viable classwide damages model. Indeed, Schultz effectively concedes that his class could not be adequately managed or ascertained by suggesting that the Court simply award any damages to non-class members— the students rather than the payors. For these reasons, the proposed class is unmanageable. The case is a putative class breach-of-contract action. It is before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Schultz's Motion for Class Certification. The case arises from the closure of the Defendant Emory's campuses upon the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Schultz alleges that "while he and Class members paid for students' inperson access to renowned faculty as essential to the Emory experience, Defendant excluded students from such access for the Spring 2020 and Fall 2020 semesters." Schultz's Amended Complaint seeks relief on two claims: (1) breach of implied contract and (2) money had and received. The Plaintiff is the father of a former Emory student who was enrolled full-time in classes in the spring and fall semesters of 2020. Emory is a private research university in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TVnaic at no extra charge.[CC] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clyde Williamson, v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Merrick Bank Corp. Case No. 3:24-cv-00756-DPJ-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac entered a case management order as follows: The action is set for jury trial during a one-week term of court beginning on: March 16, 2026. The pretrial conference is set on Feb. 13, 2026. All discovery must be completed by Oct. 2, 2025. The deadline for class certification motions is Jan. 15, 2026. A settlement conference is set on Jan. 6, 2026. Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yz6HNv at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US LLC: 3rd Circuit Dismisses Fraud Claims Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas Hardiman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal brought by six plaintiffs challenging the dismissal of their fraud-based claims against FCA US LLC. The case concerns allegations that FCA US LLC designed, manufactured, and sold Dodge "muscle" cars with defective rear differentials. After dismissing the fraud claims, the Delaware District Court had entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment. However, the Court of Appeals held that the fraud and warranty counts were alternative theories of a single claim and that no final judgment had been entered for purposes of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. In 2021, six individuals -- Gustavo Diaz, Joseph Santos, Christian A. Gibson, Gerald Sinclair, Marvin Leon Veal, and Domenick Scorziello -- sued FCA US LLC in Delaware. The complaint alleged that FCA designed, manufactured, and sold Dodge "muscle" cars with defective rear differentials. The class vehicles included 2015 to 2019 Charger Hellcats, 2015 to 2019 Challenger Hellcats, and 2018 Demons. The complaint asserted state and federal causes of action individually and on behalf of the putative nationwide class and sub-classes sounding in fraud and breach of warranty. FCA moved to dismiss, and the District Court granted the motion. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and offered Plaintiffs a chance to amend their complaint. In the meantime, two others -- Brian Stone and Michael Kissler -- joined most Plaintiffs in moving for leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff Scorziello did not move for leave to amend and stood on the original complaint. The District Court granted the motion to amend, and seven Plaintiffs filed a First Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint (FASCAC). Like the original complaint, the FASCAC included class and individual counts asserting that FCA designed, manufactured, and sold class vehicles with a defective rear differential. All seven Plaintiffs brought Counts I and II, which were based in fraud, and Count III, for warranty. FCA moved to dismiss the FASCAC, and the District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The District Court dismissed the fraud counts, holding that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that FCA had pre-sale knowledge of the alleged defect. The Court also rejected all the warranty counts brought by Diaz, Santos, Gibson, Sinclair, and Veal. But the Court denied the motion as to two warranty counts brought by Stone and Kissler. The six original Plaintiffs moved to certify the dismissal of their fraud counts for appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), or, in the alternative, for final judgment on those counts under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The District Court denied the request for certification under Section 1292(b) but granted the request for final judgment under Rule 54(b). The six original Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their fraud counts. According to the Appeals Court, Rule 54(b) currently provides: When an action presents more than one claim for relief -- whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim -- or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." The Appeals Court further held that a determination under Rule 54(b) involves two distinct steps. A district court must first determine that it is dealing with a "final judgment." Once having found finality, the district court must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for delay. "We lack jurisdiction to review the remaining Appellants' fraud counts," the Appeals Court concluded. "That is because their warranty counts are an alternative theory of recovery to their fraud counts rather than separate 'claims' for purposes of Rule 54(b). So the District Court's Rule 54(b) judgment as to the fraud counts did not finally resolve a 'claim.'" Consistent with Sussex Drug Prods. v. Kanasco, Ltd., 920 F.2d 1150, 1153 (3d Cir. 1990), the Appeals Court held that Appellants' warranty and fraud counts constitute a single "claim" for purposes of Rule 54(b). The fraud counts are "[a]lternative theories of recovery" to the warranty counts "based on the same factual situation" -- the allegedly defective rear differentials of the class vehicles. "Appellants' warranty and fraud counts constitute a single 'claim' for purposes of Rule 54(b). The fraud counts are alternative theories of recovery to the warranty counts based on the same factual situation -- the allegedly defective rear differentials of the class vehicles. The District Court erred by entering a judgment under Rule 54(b) on the fraud-based counts because the judgment was not final. So we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and instruct the District Court to vacate its January 2, 2024, order directing the entry of a partial final judgment.” Circuit Judge Phipps dissented in part, saying, "I respectfully dissent in part because the Rule 54(b) order allowing the immediate appeal of the dismissal of the five original plaintiffs' fraud-based counts in the amended complaint satisfies the relevant standard: it was issued after the rejection of several but not all of the counts in the amended complaint." "The fraud-based counts in the amended complaint do not have the same elements as the breach-of-warranty counts in that pleading. As the District Court explained, pre-sale knowledge of the alleged defect is an element of each of those fraud-based counts. But pre-sale knowledge of a defect is not an element of any of the breach-of-implied-warranty counts in the amended complaint. Because of that elemental difference between the fraud-based counts and the breach-of-warranty counts, the quashed fraud-based counts are not part of the same 'claim' as the breach-of-warranty counts." "Efficiency and the timely administration of justice favor allowing the five original plaintiffs to immediately appeal the dismissal of their fraud-based claims without requiring them to wait for resolution of the two new plaintiffs' breach-of-implied-warranty counts." "The fraud-based counts brought by the original five plaintiffs in the amended complaint were different claims than the breach-of-warranty counts in that pleading. And because the other requirements for appellate jurisdiction were met, with the entry of the Rule 54(b) order, those fraud-based claims are within this Court's appellate jurisdiction." Counsel for Appellants: Tyler C. Anderson, Esq. Ryan H. Wu, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW 1875 Century Park E, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Kelly A. Green, Esq. SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS 1000 N West Street The Brandywine Building, Suite 1501 P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee: Brandon L. Boxler, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 919 E Main Street, Suite 1000 Richmond, VA 23219 - and - Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 - and - Jessica L. Reno, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 The appellate case is, Diaz et al. v. FCA US LLC, No. 24-1197 (3rd Cir.). The district court case is, Diaz, et al. v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00906 (D. Del.), FIDELITY NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Information Services 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 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On March 6, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by a shareholder of the Company. The action was consolidated with another action and the consolidated case is now captioned In re Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. A lead plaintiff has been appointed, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2023. The consolidated amended complaint names the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and seeks damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with its disclosures relating to its former Merchant Solutions segment, including with respect to its valuation, integration, and synergies. On September 30, 2024, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the case therefore has moved into the discovery phase. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case, but no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- https://www.fisglobal.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation which offers a wide range of financial products and services.[BN] FORD MOTOR: Frankowski Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE FRANKOWSKI, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-02300-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting motion to transfer Frankowski case the District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Mr. Frankowski, a resident of Los Angeles County, filed this class action lawsuit in March 2025 against Ford Motor Company, alleging that his 2021 Ford Bronco Sport caught fire while traveling through Muir Beach, California. But there is a case in the Eastern District of Michigan that asserts the same defect and requests the same relief from the same defendant. Ford moves to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan under the first-to-file rule or, in the alternative, for the convenience parties transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). Frankowski claims that the fire in his vehicle was caused by "defective fuel injectors that can crack, leak fuel, [and] allow fuel to accumulate on top of the engine" of "2021–23 Ford Bronco Sport and 2020-22 Ford Escape vehicles equipped with 1.5- liter engines ("Vehicles"). Based on this alleged defect, Frankowski seeks damages and declaratory relief for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as for breach of warranty, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of purchasers who purchased or leased a 2021-2023 Ford Bronco Sport or 2020-2022 Ford Escape vehicle. Relatedly, Frankowski notes that Ford is trying to dismiss the claims of the one named California plaintiff in Letson on standing grounds because that plaintiff's Vehicle has not yet exhibited the defect with his fuel injector. Here, Frankowski's Vehicle exhibited the defect when his Vehicle burst into flames. At this juncture, neither of these scenarios has come to pass. There are nationwide class claims in Letson. There is a named California plaintiff in Letson asserting claims for the same defects under the same laws as Frankowski relies on here. That is sufficient for the first-to-file rule to apply. Ford is an American automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yOuWBR at no extra charge.[CC] FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FullBeauty Brands Operations, LLC, d/b/a Roaman's, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02046 (D. Minn., May 8, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.roamans.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, intimates, sleepwear, swimwear, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOLDENTRUST INSURANCE: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldentrust Insurance Inc. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goldentrust Insurance Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-22068-DPG (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. GoldenTrust -- https://goldentrust.com/en/ -- offers a wide range of insurance in all fields such as: Life, Auto, Home, Commercial, Health, and Retirement Plans among others.[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 GOODRX INC: Ritchie Pharmacy Alleges Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- RITCHIE PHARMACY, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CVS CAREMARK CORP.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; AND NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00193 (D.R.I., April 30, 2025) is an antitrust class action to put a stop to Defendants' illegal price-fixing scheme, which targets independent pharmacies like Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendants, a generic-drug coupon provider and four leading pharmacy benefit managers, are ostensibly competitors for pharmacy reimbursements when patients fill prescriptions for generic medications. But rather than compete, GoodRx and the PBM Defendants agreed to artificially suppress prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies, and to increase fees charged to pharmacies, on all GoodRx related transactions. This conspiracy has caused harm to independent pharmacies throughout the United States, says the suit. The Defendants' collusive agreement to fix the price of pharmacy reimbursements for generic medicine is per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws. The Defendants may not accomplish this forbidden price-fixing activity by passing their pricing information through an algorithm -- especially not an algorithm maintained and operated by a horizontal competitor. The Defendants' illegal conspiracy to underpay pharmacies must be stopped, and independent pharmacies must see their stolen earnings restored so they can continue to serve their communities and patients, the Plaintiff asserts. GoodRx, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodRx Intermediate Holdings, LLC, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. GoodRx processes 2.5% of all prescription drug claims in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Prignano, Esq. MCINTYRE TATE LLP 50 Park Row West Suite 109 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 351-7707 E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com - and - Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Silvie R. Saltzman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com ssaltzman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Manuel John Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Padilla Suit Over Hidden, Junk Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- CELINA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company; GREP GENERAL PARTNER, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company; GREYSTAR RS NATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company, and GREP SOUTHWEST, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00338 (D. Utah, April 30, 2025) Is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated arising out of Greystar's deceptive, unfair, and illegal hidden or junk Utility Reimbursement fees charged to tenants since at least 2019 to the present. In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Colorado filed a complaint against Greystar alleging that, since at least 2019, Greystar has used deceptive advertising to entice consumers into applying for rental housing, and then bilked those consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging hidden fees (mandatory, fixed fees that are not included in the advertised price) for itself and its landlord clients. In addition to the FTC Allegations, THE Plaintiff has also found that many Fees, labeled as Utility Reimbursement Fees, are never disclosed to consumers (until consumers are billed for them) or provided for in Greystar's lease agreements. Many (if not all) of the Utility Reimbursement Fees that Greystar charges their tenants on a monthly basis are not authorized or even mentioned in Greystar's lease agreements with tenants, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action against Greystar seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iii) violations of the Utah Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v) declaratory relief. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC provides real estate services. The Company offers property, investment management, development, and construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com H & G FRANCHISING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. H & G FRANCHISING, LLC, Case No 1:25-cv-03795 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed 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 in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Because Defendant's Website has never been equally accessible, and because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the Website to become and remain accessible, the Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. section 12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist the Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant's Website. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HAMILTON POINT: Tucker Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamilton Point Investments LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brian Tucker, Benjamin Waite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hamilton Point Investments LLC, Hamilton Point Property Management LLC, HPI 2900 Norman LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00489-D (W.D. Okla., May 5, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hamilton Point Investments LLC (HPI) -- https://hamiltonptinv.com/ -- is a real estate private-equity investment company that owns and manages multifamily apartment properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffery A. Taylor, Esq. CHADWICK & TAYLOR 5613 N Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Phone: (405) 286-1600 Fax: (405) 842-6132 Email: taylorjeff@me.com HAPI ENTERPRISES: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hapi Enterprises, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yancy Garcia, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hapi Enterprises, LLC, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 25CV010050 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Hapi Enterprises LLC is a company that operates in the Research & Development industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com HARBHAJAN DADWAL: Walker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harbhajan Dadwal, et al. The case is styled as Savanha Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HARBHAJAN DADWAL, MONTEREY PENINSULA HOTELS GROUP LP, Case No. 25CV002410 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., May 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Harbhajan Dadwal is the President at Monterey peninsula hotels group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Peery, Esq. THE PEERY LAW FIRM 4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-995-4079 Fax: 818-995-6514 Email: ap@peerylaw.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Brush Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shawn Brush and David Pfanders, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 250401247 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02293. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that HDMC violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), by "failing to pay wages for time associated with required walking on Defendant's premises at the beginning and end of the workday."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: 215-884-2491 The Defendants are represented by: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321 Phone: 267.402.3000 Facsimile: 267.402.3131 Email: akirshenbaum@littler.com - and - Christian A. Angotti, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One PPG Pl., Suite 2400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412.201.7623 Fax: 412.456-2377 Email: cangotti@littler.com HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Owens Sues Over Misleading Sale Price Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- KIM OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03853 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. Defendant Helzberg's Diamond Shops, LLC makes, sells, and markets jewelry and accessories, such as diamond jewelry. The products are sold online through Defendant's website, www.helzberg.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported discounts from those listed regular prices, for example "15% Off Sitewide" or "$50 off $299+." The Defendant also regularly represents that its sales are limited-time and on the verge of ending. Far from being time-limited, however, discounts on all of Defendant's products are regularly available. As a result, the list prices Defendant advertises for high-priced products are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because high priced products are consistently available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited time -- quite the opposite, they are consistently available, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case for herself and on behalf of other consumers who purchased Helzberg Products at a purported discount. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Simmons Suit Over Damage Protection Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02409-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 30, 2025) is a putative class action alleging damages suffered by Plaintiff arising from Defendant's breach of contract when it force placed "Damage Protection" despite it being expressly labelled an "optional service." During the relevant period, upon information and belief, the Defendant used two form contracts nationwide for its tool and equipment rental services. The provisions relevant to Damage Protection are materially the same with the only notable difference being the amount of the Damage Protection fee. The Defendant's pattern and practice of force placing the Damage Protection on Plaintiff and customers substantially inflates its revenue and is in breach of its contract. Despite the Damage Protection being an "optional service," Defendant's store manager in Pelham, Alabama informed Plaintiff that Defendant's "default setting on their system was to add the protection, but that it could be taken off." This is in direct contradiction to Defendant's contract which expressly states that it is "optional" and that it must be "selected" for it to be charged. The Defendant's pattern and practice of making the Damage Protection selected by "default" is a breach of its contract, says the suit. Home Depot USA, Inc. operates home improvement retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2727 Paces Ferry Rd SE #750 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com lewis@hgdlawfirm.com HOME STAR: Schlosser Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Serra Schlosser, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. NEW HOME STAR CORPORATION Case No. 1:25-cv-05057 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("WIWA") and related Washington Department of Labor & Industries (DOLI) regulations, Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA") and the Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WWRA"). The Plaintiff and the other Salaried Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But NHS does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Salaried Employees overtime wages. Instead, NHS misclassifies the Plaintiff and the other Salaried Employees as overtime exempt employees and pays them a salary and no overtime wages (NHS's "salary pay scheme"). NHS's salary pay scheme violates the FLSA and WMWA by depriving non-exempt employees (the Plaintiff and the other Salaried Employees) of overtime wages for their hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. And NHS fails to provide or make available to the Plaintiff and other Salaried Employees bona fide, uninterrupted, and compliant 30-minute "meal periods" (NHS's "meal period policy"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for NHS as a community manager from approximately September 2022 through June 2023. NHS bills itself as "helping builders field the best new home sales team within their markets" and as "the largest private seller of new homes in America."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., ite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (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 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR: Krull Sues Over Deceptive Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Jane Krull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HONEYLOVE SCULPTWEAR, INC., Case No. 25STCV12297 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2025), is brought for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and for unjust enrichment and to halt Defendant's deceptive and unfair practices and to obtain redress on behalf of other United States consumers that were charged these hidden junk fees. The problem here is that Honeylove utilizes a deceptive and unlawful "drip pricing" scheme to gather undisclosed junk fess from its customers' purchases on its website, www.honeylove.com. Drip pricing "is a pricing technique in which firms advertise only part of a product's price and reveal other charges later as the customer goes through the buying process." After a consumer finds a clothing product they would like to purchase, they can add the item to their "Cart" which shows the "Total" price to be paid minus any shipping costs. Next, the consumer can click on a "Safe Checkout" button to proceed to the final purchase page. At the final purchase "Pay Now" page, Honeylove sneaks in an unlawful hidden fee that is in light font that blends into the background which is purposefully designed so that consumers do not notice the extra fee. The name of the fee has changed overtime, but the central design of the website has not. The Defendant has been unjustly charging these hidden junk fees for years from thousands or likely tens of thousands or more from its customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website and purchased two CrosssOver Bras as a "bundle." Honeylove sells various "scultpwear" clothing products for women including bras, shapewear, tops, clothing, bodysuits, underwear, and sleep and lounge clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com kurt@crosnerlegal.com HORIZON BEHAVIORAL: Banks Files Suit in W.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Behavioral Health. The case is styled as Tiffany Banks, on behalf of herself and her minor child L.I., Jasmine Allen, Tina Robinson, and Tiera Trent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Horizon Behavioral Health, Case No. 6:25-cv-00038-NKM (W.D. Va., May 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Horizon Health -- https://www.horizonbh.org/ -- is a behavioral health management partner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Carroll, Esq. COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP 3311 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 999-9999 Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com HORIZON OPPORTUNITES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Stratton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHAL STRATTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON OPPORTUNITES INC. dba HORIZON BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00034-NKM (W.D. Va., April 30, 2025) is a class action arising out of the cyberattack and data breach of which Defendant Horizon became aware on or about March 16, 2025 resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and other patients' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the suit. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Horizon Opportunities Inc., dba Horizon Behavioral Health is a provider of mental health, substance use and intellectual disability services in Central Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com HOUZZ INC: Carr Sues Over Misleading Automatic Renewal ------------------------------------------------------ Christine Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOUZZ INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00503 (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2025), is brought for its deceptive and misleading automatic renewal and negative option billing practices in violation of State Consumer Laws, including Florida law. Houzz offers subscription services, including Houzz Pro and Houzz Essential, which Houzz markets as providing tools for users interested in home-related projects. To induce consumers to purchase its subscription services, Houzz offers a "free trial" period. However, Houzz fails to adequately disclose that, at the end of the free trial period, consumers will be automatically enrolled in and charged for a 12-month subscription that cannot be canceled. Houzz has engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable practices in connection with its automatic renewal subscription service in violation of state and federal consumer protection laws in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Houzz's practices are currently subject to increasing regulatory scrutiny nationwide, as federal and state authorities have begun taking action against similar deceptive auto-renewal practices. This lawsuit seeks to hold Houzz accountable for its deceptive subscription practices, to secure relief for consumers who have been harmed by these practices, and to ensure that Houzz complies with the law going forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Houzz's website to explore home design ideas for personal use. Houzz operates an online platform that provides services related to home design, improvement, and decoration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy Sean Carr, Esq. 4304 Blue Heron Drive Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 Phone: (516) 289-7585 Email: Timcarr81@gmail.com ICOOL LLC: Acar Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yasin Acar, Devran Bayazit, Firat Kilic and Suat Kilic, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. ICOOL LLC, JOHNSON GROUP LLC and MEHMET SALIH ERCAN A/K/A MATTHEW JOHNSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-04031-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., May 8, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, statutory and liquidated damages, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New Jersey law. The Defendants were required to pay the Plaintiffs and the collective and class one and one half times their regular wage rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek pursuant to the overtime wage provisions. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the collective and class the overtime wages to which they were entitled under the FLSA. The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly and intentionally failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the collective and class the proper overtime wage rate. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees the minimum wages to which they were entitled to under the N.J.S.A. and the FLSA. and its supporting regulations. The Defendants willfully violated the N.J.S.A. and the FLSA by knowingly and intentionally failing to pay the Plaintiffs the correct minimum hourly wage. As a result of Defendants' violations of the N.J.S.A., N.J. Admin. Code and the FLSA the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees are entitled to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, liquidated damages, and pre- and post-judgment interes, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as a warehouse worker, installer, driver, and project manager. ICOOL LLC provides commercial refrigeration solutions to businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor, Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com IL SOLE: Grisales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Edinson Adrian Castellanos Grisales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IL SOLE, LLC (D/B/A SOTTO LA LUNA), LUIGIA MASTROVITO, FRANCESCA MASTROVITO, VALERIO MARCHI, and MARCO COCCIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-02597 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime compensation and spread of hours pay for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Castellanos to all other similarly situated employees. At all times specified in this Complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and porter at the restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located in Queens, New York under the name "Sotto la Luna."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 INDEPENDENT FUNDING: Samo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Samo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Independent Funding, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01179-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Independent Funding, LLC -- https://independentfunding.net/ -- offers financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com J.J.F. MANAGEMENT: Henry Files Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.J.F. Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kipen Henry, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. J.J.F. Management Services, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01448 (D. Md., May 5, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. J.J.F. Management Services and its subsidiaries own and operate car and truck rental locations. The company also owns and operates automobile and truck franchises.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Ramirez Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Idalia Ramirez and Donald Keck on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 24CV097199 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03922. The Complaint stated 9 causes of action: Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime; Unlawful Deduction from Wages; Failure to Provide Meal or Rest Periods; Failure to Furnish An Accurate Itemized Wage Statement Upon Payment of Wages; Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records; Unfair Competition and Unfair Business Practices; Fraud; and Civil Penalties under PAGA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Kerry Friedrichs, Esq. Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq. Richard B. Mojica, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: crowley@seyfarth.com kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com rmojica@seyfarth.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Bell Files Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. The case is styled as Avvion Bell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01435 (D. Md., May 5, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Kelly & Associates -- https://www.officialkellybenefits.com/ -- is an employee benefits consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (212) 946-9305 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tpacheco@milberg.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mejia Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR MEJIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., dba KELLY BENEFITS, and AEROTEK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01379-GLS (D. Md., April 30, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to protect the highly sensitive data of 263,893 individuals, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the personally identifying information/protected health information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendants knew or should have known that each victim of the data breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the data breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII/PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect the PII/PHI of individuals whose PII/PHI was in Defendants' custody and control, by failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendants violated state law and harmed an unknown number of individuals, says the suit.  The Plaintiff is a victim of the data breach, receiving incident notice on April 27, 2025. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. is a benefits administration company based in Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane O. King, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DUANE O. KING, PC 803 W. Broad St., Suite 210 Falls Church, VA 22046 Telephone: (202) 331-1963 E-mail: dking@dkinglaw.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Wargas Files Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Wargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc., D/B/A Kelly Benefits, Case No. 1:25-cv-01486-SAG (D. Md., May 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Kelly & Associates -- https://www.officialkellybenefits.com/ -- is an employee benefits consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com KKW TRUCKING INC: Hogner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against KKW Trucking, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Hogner, as an Individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KKW Trucking, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006549 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." KKW Trucking Inc. -- https://www.kkwtrucks.com/ -- provides transportation services. The Company offers services in areas of air ride, high cube equipment, logistics management, and truckload and less-than-truckload services.[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 LAD-P LLC: Davoodi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against LAD-P LLC. The case is styled as Hamid Davoodi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LAD-P LLC also known as PORSCHE DOWNTOWN L.A., Case No. 25STCV13143 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." LAD-P LLC also known as PORSCHE DOWNTOWN L.A. -- https://www.porschedowntownla.com/ -- provide a vast selection of new and used vehicles, exceptional car care and customer service.[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 LAKELAND CARE: Morrow Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Morrow, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. LAKELAND CARE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00661 (E.D. Wis., May 5, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other current and former individuals employed by Defendant in the position of "Care Manager" (hereafter "Care Managers"). During the prior three years, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other Care Managers as exempt employees, paid them a salary, and failed to pay them overtime compensation when they worked more than 40 hours in individual work weeks. This count arises from Defendant's violation of the FLSA for its failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated Care Managers overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked over 40 hours during individual work weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Care Manager from December 2021 to August 2024. The Defendant is a Managed Care Organization ("MCO") that contracts with the Wisconsin Department of Health Services ("DHS") to provide services under the State of Wisconsin's Family Care Medicaid long-term care program.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL: Barlow Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Domonique Barlow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEGENDS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03835 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and government issued ID numbers ("Private Information"). On November 9, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's IT systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant's who, in order to obtain employment from Defendant, was required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public Private Information. Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at least, even after the employee relationship has ended. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal employees' Private Information from Defendant. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its employees' sensitive data, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant is an entertainment venue management group that provides strategic planning services for live events worldwide, including across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com LG ELECTRONICS USA: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02012 (D. Minn., May 6, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.lg.com/us/) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers electronics for sale including, but not limited to, laptops, televisions, home theatre supplies, audio equipment, appliances, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com LIFEWAVE INC: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeWave, Inc. The case is styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. LifeWave, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00752-AN (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. LifeWave -- https://lifewave.com/ -- is dedicated to maximizing your potential through advanced life technology.[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 - and - 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 LINDE INC: Townsend Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Townsend, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. LINDE INC., a Delaware corporation; LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2504057 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04162. The Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions Code (Unfair Competition), all in Violation of California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Lauren Manso, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: lmanso@littler.com LIVONIA, MI: Faces Suit Over Ordinance Selective Enforcement ------------------------------------------------------------ Charlotte Dobessi-Bossombo, and Aaron Brandon Mohlman v. City Of Livonia, Case No. 2:25-cv-11340-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., May 7, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons seeking to enforce the provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, U.S.C. Amend. XIV, U.S.C. 1963, art 1 section 2, and U.S.C. Amend. IV. According to the complaint, the Defendant acted under color of state law in its selective enforcement of ordinance violations against Mohlman's, that resulted in disparate impact in the differential treatment from other similarly situated persons, is not equal treatment and does not otherwise meet the requirements of U.S.C. 1963, art 1 section 2. The Defendant is a municipal governmental and political subdivision created pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan. Livonia's agent Daniel Pilachowski, an ordinance enforcement officer, acted under color of state law.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se: Charlotte Dobessi-Bossombo Aaron Brandon Mohlman 15507 Brookfield St. Livonia, MH 48154 Telephone: (248) 862-8660 LULAV PROPERTIES: Rodriguez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Geure Rodriguez, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated v. LULAV PROPERTIES, LLC, LULAV MANAGEMENT CORP., and KOUROSH NASAB a/k/a KENNY NASAB a/k/a KEN NASAB, Case No. 1:25-cv-03776 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours," and illegal deductions; liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and, attorneys' fees and costs. Most weeks, Plaintiff worked 80 to 84 hours per week or more. Plaintiff would typically work Monday through Sunday from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m., but he was required to work on the evenings, weekends, nights and for other "emergencies" or when otherwise instructed by Defendants. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt hourly manual worker. However, throughout his employment, he was paid the same amount every week, a flat rate of just one hundred dollars ($100.00). Thus, he was paid below minimum wage, and not properly compensated at the overtime rate when he worked more than 40 hours in any given week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendants as a maintenance and repair worker in 2021 and worked continuously for Defendants until January 28, 2025. Ken Nasab owns and manages more than 882 apartments in several buildings throughout New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq. Daniel Folchetti, Esq. VALIANT LAW 2 Westchester Park Dr., Suite 205 White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: 914-730-2422 Email: jjj@valiantlaw.com dcf@valiantlaw.com MAISON CLOSE: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Alexandria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAISON CLOSE NYC, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03792 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 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"). Because Defendant's website, www.maisoncloserestaurant.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.maisoncloserestaurant.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MASS GENERAL: $8.25MM Class Settlement in Norton Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK NORTON, DASHKA LOUIS, CAROLINE MITCHELL, NANCY BARTLETT and AZILDA CORDAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-10045-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, approval of form and manner of settlement notice, and scheduling of a fairness hearing: In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court conditionally certifies the following class ("Settlement Class"): "All persons, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Consolidated 403(b) Program of Mass General Brigham and Member Organizations Plan (the "Plan") at any time during the Class Period (Jan. 13, 2016 through the date of this Order), and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants and their immediate family members who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during the Class Period." The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Mark Norton, Dashka Louis, Caroline Mitchell, Nancy Bartlett and Azilda Cordahi as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The amount of the Settlement ($8,250,000) is fair, reasonable, and adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of litigation, trial, and appeal. The Court approves the appointment of Analytics LLC as the Settlement Administrator for the Settlement. The action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with respect to the Consolidated 403(b) Program of Mass General Brigham and Member Organizations Plan. Mass offers patient care, rehabilitation, medical research and discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YST0cY at no extra charge.[CC] MATTHEW WEISS: Doe Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matthew Weiss, et al. The case is styled as Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Matthew Weiss, Malone University, Keffer Development, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00827-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Matthew Weiss is an American football coach who most recently was the quarterbacks coach and co-offensive coordinator for the Michigan Wolverines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna R. Caplan, Esq. Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX - COLUMBUS 4200 Regent Street, Ste. 210 Columbus, OH 43082 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com bderose@barkanmeizlish.com MDL 3114: Remand of Phillips Action Back to S.D. Fla. Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied a move to remand the case captioned action "Phillips, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:24-02523, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the Southern District of Florida. In October 2024, the panel transferred this action, bearing Case No. 9:24−80700, from the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas for inclusion in the multi-district action captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114. Pro se plaintiffs Elroy and Sixtoria Phillips moved for remand of the action to its transferor court under Section 1407(a) and Panel Rule 10.3. Defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC opposed the motion. The panel emphasized that in considering the question of Section 1407 remand, it accords great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate, as that judge has supervised the day-to-day pretrial proceedings in the MDL. Here, the transferee judge has not issued a suggestion of remand. Without that, a party advocating remand "bears a strong burden of persuasion," and plaintiffs have not met that burden here, ruled the panel. In support of remand, plaintiffs argue that the panel lacked jurisdiction to transfer Phillips to the MDL because, before transfer, the transferor court had entered defendants in default and administratively closed the action; plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment after transfer which raises case-specific issues; plaintiffs' leadership in the MDL will not represent their interests; and inclusion in the MDL is inconvenient and impedes plaintiffs' ability to present their case in violation of due process. According to the panel, the allegedly unique issues in plaintiffs' motion for default judgment do not support remand. Plaintiffs also err in asserting that their motion for default judgment raises only case-specific issues. They seek damages based on the alleged sale of their personal information on the dark web, emotional distress, and the costs of protecting themselves from harm due to the data breach. These are the same kinds of damages alleged by plaintiffs in the MDL. Moreover, the panel's initial transfer order recognized that one of the common factual questions in the MDL would be damages. Plaintiffs' inclusion in the MDL is appropriate as individual actions and putative class actions are routinely centralized in a single MDL where the actions share a common factual core. Here, the pretrial proceedings in all actions concerning the AT&T data breach, including Phillips, will overlap, regardless of whether the claims are styled as individual or class claims. A full-text copy of the court's April 1, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Order_Denying_Remand-3-25.pdf MDL 3114: Two Suits Consolidated in AT&T Data Privacy Row --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3114. Plaintiffs in the two actions assert claims concerning the data breach at issue in MDL No. 3114 alongside claims unrelated to the data breach. On November 26, 2024, the Panel Clerk filed an order conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No. 3114 with simultaneous separation and remand of the non-data breach claims to the Southern District of Florida transferor court. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the conditional transfer order. Defendant AT&T Inc. opposed the motion and supported transfer as provided for in the order. The putative class actions in the MDL present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. The two actions concern the AT&T data breach announced in March 2024 and share common factual questions with the actions in the MDL, rules the panel. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that transfer is improper while their motions for remand to state court are pending, however the panel rules that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to transfer, as the parties can present such arguments to the transferee court. A full-text copy of the court's April 1, 2025 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf MDL 3126: Wright Suit Consolidated in Data Breach Row in Montana ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers "Wright v. AT&T," C.A. No. 4:24−03703 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the District of Montana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Brian Morris for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3126. Wright moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 3126. Defendant AT&T Inc. opposed the motion and supports transfer. The actions in MDL No. 3126 involve common factual questions concerning a cluster of data breaches that occurred on the Snowflake cloud platform from approximately April through June 2024, when a threat actor allegedly exfiltrated the personal information of over 500 million consumers and employees, including AT&T cellular customers. The Wright action involves the same factual issues concerning the breach of AT&T data on the Snowflake platform. In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argued that transfer would be inconvenient and inequitable based on her alleged disability and financial condition, which make travel to the transferee district impracticable. "These arguments are unpersuasive," rules the panel adding that it looks to "the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation as a whole, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation." Plaintiff also requested that the panel order AT&T to provide plaintiff a full accounting of any compromised data pertaining to plaintiff and to pay plaintiff damages. The panel says the relief requested is intertwined with a ruling on the substantive issues in the action, which is beyond its authority to decide. Plaintiff further requests that the panel rule on various procedural matters in her case --for example, denying a stay of proceedings and ordering defendant to respond to her complaint. The panel notes that it does not rule on the conduct of pretrial proceedings in centralized or potential tag-along actions. It "leave[s] to the discretion of the transferee judge all issues related to the conduct of the pretrial proceedings." A full-text copy of the court's April 1, 2025 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3126-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf MDL 3128: Snider Action Conditional Transfer Order Vacated ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order vacating the conditional transfer order designated "CTO-5", which transferred SNIDER v. DIVIDEND SOLAR FINANCE, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:24−01151 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in the multi-district action captioned, "In re: Dividend Solar Finance, LLC, and Fifth Third Bank Sales and Lending Practices Litigation," MDL No. 3128. Defendant ADT Solar, LLC, in the Snider action moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred Snider to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 3128. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. Defendants Fifth Third Bank, National Association; Dividend Solar Finance, LLC; and Dividend Finance Inc. initially opposed the motion but subsequently withdrew their opposition. After considering plaintiff's arguments, the panel finds that transfer of Snider will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. MDL plaintiffs contend that the solar companies made false representations regarding both the solar systems to be installed and the terms of Dividend's financing, and that the amounts of the loans improperly included undisclosed finance fees. Plaintiff in Snider similarly alleges that he purchased a residential solar system that he financed with Dividend based on the deceptive sales tactics and false representations of a solar company sales representative. Despite this apparent overlap, the panel concluded that transfer is not warranted at this time. All parties to the action have agreed to resolve plaintiff's claims through binding arbitration, the action has been stayed pending completion of that process, and the matter has been administratively closed. There seems little risk that the action will involve discovery or motion practice that would duplicate or conflict with activity in the MDL, as any further proceedings in the Northern District of Texas likely will be limited to review of the arbitral award. Should transfer to the MDL later appear appropriate, any party to the action may again notice it as a potential tag-along action, 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-3128-Order_Vacating_CTO-3-25.pdf MONGOLIAN OPERATING: Flores Sues to Seek Minimum, Overtime Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Flores and Adam Almaraz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mongolian Operating Company LLC d/b/a as BD's Mongolian BBQ of Bolingbrook, Case No. 1:25-cv-05125 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter the "FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (hereinafter "IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (hereinafter the "IWPCA"), to receive minimum wage for all hours worked; to receive the overtime rate of pay for all overtime hours worked; and to be paid all of their earned tips. The Plaintiffs were required to share their tips with cooks, prep cooks, and employees restocking the buffet bar. None of these food preparers were customer service employees, and none were eligible to receive tips. Additionally, Plaintiffs also bring claims for owed wages based on Defendant's violation of the 80/20 rule, in that Plaintiffs typically worked 1-2 hours of "non-tip work" out of a 4-5 hour shift. Plaintiffs are owed compensation for this additional non-tip work time. The Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees were not provided sufficient records from Defendant, who has failed to make, keep and preserve records with respect to each of their employees sufficient to determine the wages, tips and work assignments in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as servers. Mongolian Operation Company d/b/a BD's Mongolian BBQ of Bolingbrook operates a restaurant/bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Phone: (630) 464-9675 Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com - and - Lisa L. Clay, Esq. LISA L. CLAY ATTORNEY AT LAW 2100 Manchester Road, Suite 1603 Wheaton, IL 60187 Phone: (630) 456-4818 Email: lisa@clayatlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Unlawfully Detained Cyclists, Esparza Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- OLIVER CASEY ESPARZA, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK; JESSICA S. TISCH; THOMAS G. DONLON; EDWARD CABAN; KEECHANT SEWELL; POLICE OFFICER KENNEY F. VEGA; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:25-cv-03815 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) arises from the unconstitutional policy and practice of the City of New York of detaining, ticketing, and prosecuting cyclists for an action that is expressly permitted by New York City law: -- riding a bicycle through an intersection when the traffic signal is red, but the pedestrian signal indicates white/walk. As part of the City's initiative to reduce pedestrian and bicycle injuries and deaths, the City has implemented Leading Pedestrian Intervals at thousands of intersections. An LPI gives pedestrians the white/walk signal while the traffic signal is still red, allowing pedestrians to enter the crosswalk at an intersection several seconds before vehicles are given a green light, thereby enabling pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles are allowed to turn right or left. In 2019, the New York City Council enacted Local Law 154, which expressly provides that a person operating a bicycle while crossing an intersection shall follow pedestrian control signals (walk/don’t walk), not traffic control signals (red/green). Despite this clear and unambiguous statute, the City maintains a policy and practice of detaining, ticketing, and prosecuting cyclists who lawfully ride through an intersection when the pedestrian control signal indicates white/walk, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Esparza commuted to work by bicycle on October 1, 2024. He entered the intersection of Third Avenue and East Forty-Second Street in Manhattan during an LPI. Defendant NYPD Officer Kenney F. Vega unlawfully detained him and unlawfully issued him a summons -- even though Officer Vega expressly acknowledged that the pedestrian signal had indicated white/walk when Mr. Casey Esparza entered the intersection, and even though Mr. Casey Esparza expressly told Officer Vega that New York City permitted him to enter the intersection in that circumstance. The City and its police officers have engaged and continue to engage in the same unlawful behavior, over and over, detaining, ticketing, and prosecuting hundreds or thousands of law-abiding New Yorkers for riding bicycles through intersections at the safest time to do so, the suit adds. The action seeks redress for Mr. Casey Esparza and a class of similarly situated individuals, and to advance the significant public interest, embodied in New York City's Vision Zero initiative, in avoiding injury and death on public roadways. CITY OF NEW YORK comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariann Meier Wang, Esq. Eric Hecker, Esq. Alexander Goldenberg, Esq. Daniel Mullkoff, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 305 Broadway, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 NIDECKER US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NIDECKER US INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03789 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.jonessnowboards.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase Women's Shralpinist Stretch Recycled Bibs. Plaintiff attempted to purchase Women's Shralpinist Stretch Recycled Bibs but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Jones Snowboards online retail store, as well as the Jones Snowboards interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 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 OAK HARBOR FREIGHT: Ernest Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Marshall Ernest, Sammy Burrola, and Rajnish Raman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CV2025-0982 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00590. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege eight causes of action against Defendant for: Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Reimburse for Work-Related Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; and Violation of Cal. Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Pavneet S. Mac, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com pmac@nossaman.com - and - Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhasell@nossaman.com OREGON: Washington Files Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Oregon, et al. The case is styled as David Washington, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. State of Oregon, is a municipal corporation, chartered under the laws of Oregon; Oregon Department of Corrections, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon; Behavioral Health Services, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon; Dawnell Meyer; Michael Reese; Nina Volkova; Todd Byerly; Heidi Steward; Superintendent Cory Fhuere; Jamie Breyman; John Does 1-50, acting in concert and in their individual capacities; Case No. 6:25-cv-00757-MTK (D. Ore., May 5, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Oregon -- https://www.oregon.gov/ -- is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Richland County Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richland County School District One, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00893 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01171-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Patrick Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-4006 Phone: (415) 315-6337 Fax: (415) 315-4813 Email: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: S.H. Suit Transferred to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as S.H., a minor, by and through their legal guardian Lisa Hegge; S.C., a young adult, by and through their legal guardian, Casey Curtis; E.N., a minor, by and through their legal guardian Kayla Nulf; M.B.H., by and through their legal guardian Sarah Blosser; individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-10937 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 5, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01142-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Philip Rondini, Esq. BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: (248) 358-4400 Fax: (248) 358-3351 The Defendants are represented by: Ryan C. Plecha, Esq. BUTZEL LONG 201 W. Big Beaver, Suite 1200 Troy, MI 48084 Phone: (248) 258-1616 POWERSCHOOL GROUP: St. Croix Falls Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as St. Croix Falls School District, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00802 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01174-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Patrick Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-4006 Phone: (415) 315-6337 Fax: (415) 315-4813 Email: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Uniondale Union Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Uniondale Union Free School District, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00812 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01173-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Patrick Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: West Hempstead Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as West Hempstead Union Free School District, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00973 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01163-BEN-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Patrick Frantz, Esq. William B. Shinoff, Esq. FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111-4006 Phone: (415) 315-6337 Fax: (415) 315-4813 Email: anne.johnsonpalmer@ropesgray.com R AND M PLUMBING: Schulte Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Schulte, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated persons v. R AND M PLUMBING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ROBERT GRAHAM, Case No. 3:25-cv-00522 (M.D. Tenn., May 7, 2025), is brought against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA") to redress Defendants' unlawful violations of the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated (helpers/Techs in Training), their lawful overtime wages. During Plaintiff's employment at R&M, Plaintiff was not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Both during and after Plaintiff's employment at R & M, helpers (Techs in Training) were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. During Plaintiff's employment at R & M, Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. Both during and after Plaintiff's employment at R & M, helpers (Techs in Training), regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for R & M as a helper (Tech in Training) from February 7, 2022, until July 13, 2022. R & M is a plumbing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin D. Holmes, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Phone: (615) 244-6538 Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com RAMKO INJECTION: Ranjbari Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramko Injection, Inc., LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cynthia Sue Ranjbari, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ramko Injection, Inc., LLC, Partners Personnel-Management Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006441 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Ramko Injection, Inc. -- https://www.ramko-inj.com/ -- is a full-service custom plastic injection molding facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL: Manadero Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Manadero, individually and for others similarly situated v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va., May 7, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA") and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods" (the Defendant's "auto-deduction policy"). The Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees are thus not paid for this time. But the Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts, including during "meal periods," and subjects them to work interruptions during their "meal periods." Finally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Patient Care Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Riverside as a respiratory therapist from November 2021 until April 2024. Riverside touts itself as "one of Coastal Virginia's premier health systems, with a team of over 9,000 of the region's most highly skilled individuals."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (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 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com ROCHELLE AZOFF: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ROCHELLE AZOFF, et al. The case is styled as Juliana Martinez Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROCHELLE AZOFF, IRVING AZOFF, Case No. 25STCV12290 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com ROOTS PROPERTIES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. ROOTS PROPERTIES LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-03807 (D.N.J., May 5, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible property. The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property – and the tenant spaces – on several occasions, her last visit as a patron of the occurred on or about April 4, 2025. Ms. Cheli visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found, during each of her visits, that the Property was littered with violations of the ADA, both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person. ROOTS PROPERTIES LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7 Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com SAINT JAMES: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT JAMES USA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03575 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.saint-james.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 16, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Cork II Ponte Knit Wool Jacket With Buttons for Men from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Saint James USA Corp. operates the website that offers an array of goods and services including information about its 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 SCHEDULE VIEWER: Ramirez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schedule Viewer LLC. The case is styled as David Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Schedule Viewer LLC doing business as: Mediroutes, Case No. 1:25-cv-01149-CYC (D. Ariz., May 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Schedule Viewer LLC doing business as Mediroutes -- https://www.mediroutes.com/ -- develops cloud-based software solutions for the people transportation industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Fax: (314) 863-5711 Email: croberts@butschroberts.com - and - Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC 30 E Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-5374 Email: teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - SAN DIEGO 9655 Granite Ridge Dr., Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Phone: (602) 598-4000 Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Ty Derek Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - PHOENIX 2375 E Camelback Rd., Ste 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 598-4000 Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com SEACREST SERVICES: Callanan Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ---------------------------------------------------------- Kimberley Callanan, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. SEACREST SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00380 (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2025), is brought for unpaid tip compensation, unlawful retaliation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter, the "Act" or "FLSA") and Florida common law. Throughout her employment as a server/bartender with the Defendant, Plaintiff was required to share her tips with non-tipped employees such as managers and/or the house, who took money out of the tip pool or who withheld money that was supposed to be included in the tip pool. In fact, the Defendant has maintained a policy across at least that location whereby manager or the house stook money from the tip pool or withheld money from the tip pool. The Defendant's policy has caused the Plaintiff – and those similarly situated – to lose tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, the Defendant violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server/bartender. The Defendant operates a bar/restaurant at Greyhawk Golf Club of the Everglades in Collier County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Phone: (239) 985-9691 Fax: (239) 288-2534 Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com SEVILLE RESTAURANT: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Doroteo Ponce Chavez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SEVILLE RESTAURANT AND BAR INC. d/b/a SEVILLA RESTAURANT & BAR, JOSE LLOVES, and BIENVENIDO ALVAREZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-03871 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation due to fixed salary, unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a failure to compensate Plaintiff's last week of employment, unpaid spread of hours premiums, statutory penalties for failing to provide wage and hour notices upon hiring and as legally required thereafter, statutory penalties for failing to provide proper wage statements for each payment period, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Wednesday through Sunday, for a total of 45 hours per week. In addition to his scheduled hours, Plaintiff was always required to stay 1 to 2 hours beyond his scheduled end time, every workday, working approximately 7.5 hours beyond his schedule every week. In total, Plaintiff worked for 52.5 hours every week. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were similarly scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week and similarly worked hours beyond their schedules. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek due to being paid a fixed salary. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class members their wages for the last week of their employment periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a cook for Defendants' Sevilla Restaurant & Bar on October 2021 until October 2024. The Defendants have owned and operated a restaurant named "Sevilla Restaurant & Bar" located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 SEVILLE RESTAURANT: Marquina Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Marquina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. STOUT NYC HOSPITALITY GROUP INC. f/k/a WHELAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., AMITY STREET, INC. d/b/a AMITY HALL DOWNTOWN, AMITY HALL UPTOWN INC. d/b/a AMITY HALL UPTOWN, STOUT INC. d/b/a FEILE d/b/a STOUT NYC PENN STATION, MAGGIE'S PLACE, INC. d/b/a MAGGIE'S PLACE, RIVERCREST INC. d/b/a RIVERCREST, STOUT II, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC FINANCIAL DISTRICT, STOUT III INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC GRAND CENTRAL, STOUT BRYANT PARK, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC BRYANT PARK, STOUT MARKETS, INC. d/b/a STOUT NYC LODGE BAR, HALF PINT ON THOMPSON, LLC d/b/a ERNIE'S BAR d/b/a THE HALF PINT, THE INDEPENDENT NYC, INC. d/b/a THE INDEPENDENT, THE LONG ROOM INC. d/b/a THE LONG ROOM, THE WOLFE ON AMSTERDAM INC. d/b/a THE WOLFE, and MARTIN P. WHELAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-03871 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the Wage Theft Protection Act ("WTPA") to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit policy, unpaid uniform maintenance expenses, unpaid spread of hour premiums, liquidated damages, (statutory penalties due to WTPA violations, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants had a policy and practice that failed to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, due to an invalid tip credit. The Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members due to Defendants' failure to compensate employees for spread of hours premiums and uniform expenses pursuant to NYLL's Miscellaneous Wage Order. Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover from Defendants their unpaid minimum wages, due to improper tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premiums, unreimbursed costs for maintenance and purchase of uniforms, reasonable attorneys' fees, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and costs and disbursements of this action, pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and WTPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a barback, busboy, and food runner at The Half Pint. The Defendants have owned and operated a restaurant named "Sevilla Restaurant & Bar" located in the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Biscovich Sues Over Recalled Pressure Cookers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gust Biscovich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03993 (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2025), is brought to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of the Recalled Pressure Cookers. When a manufacturer sells a product, it has a duty to ensure that the product functions properly and safely for its advertised use, free from any defects. Upon discovering a defect, a manufacturer must explicitly disclose the defect and take corrective action or cease selling the product. Additionally, when a product manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty. The present class action lawsuit arises from Defendant's breach of these stated duties and obligations. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons who purchased any of the following models of Ninja Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure Cookers. Specifically, these Recalled Pressure Cookers' lid can be opened during use, causing hot contents to escape, posing a risk of burn injuries to consumers.2 ("the Defect"). On May 1, 2025, Defendant recalled nearly 1.9 million of the Recalled Pressure Cookers The allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff's own experience and are made as to other matters based on an investigation by counsel, including counsel's analysis of publicly available information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Pressure Cooker, with the Model Number of OP300, from Defendant Amazon in 2020 based on the representations made by Defendant. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes and sells consumer electronics and kitchen products, including the subject "Ninja Foodi OP300 Series Multi-Function Pressure Cookers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW, APC 145 S. Spring St; #850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Fax: (800) 867-6779 - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SNAP FINANCE: Faces Esquivel Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOE ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNAP FINANCE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01157-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 7, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 20, 2025, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. However, the Defendant ignored Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging the Plaintiff. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SP PLUS: Faces Mejia Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. Super. -------------------------------------------------------- ZOILA A. AYALA MEJIA on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. SP PLUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV12644 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; failed to provide them with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest periods; failed to pay them proper reporting time pay; failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee during the relevant and statutory periods. SP PLUS LLC is a Delaware limited liability company doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armig Khodanian, Esq. Hrag Alexanian, Esq. PRESTIGE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, P.C. 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 758-1283 Facsimile: (310) 933-5821 E-mail: eserviceel@plsfirm.com STARFIELD LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. STARFIELD, LLC DBA KINGS MEADOW SHOPPING CENTER, SIMON PARI-YA, LLC D/B/A ASADOS EL PAISITA FONDA and RINCONCITO LATINO CAFETERIA INC. D/B/A RINCONCITO LATINO CAFETERIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-22121-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant businesses each to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and restaurant businesses and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and restaurants. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property, commercial restaurant businesses have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurants and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. STARFIELD, LLC DBA KINGS MEADOW SHOPPING CENTER, owned and continue to own commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com TOKIO MARINE: Acosta Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacqueline Acosta, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TOKIO MARINE HCC SURETY GROUP, a California Corporation, TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, ANAGETTE BROWN, an individual, JERRY HUIZA, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV19693 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04171. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following eight causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Period Compensation; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due At Time of Separation of Employment; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Andrea F. Oxman, Esq. Trevor R. Witt, Esq. Brittney E. Willis, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Andrea.Oxman@jacksonlewis.com Trevor.Witt@jacksonlewis.com Brittney.Willis@jacksonlewis.com TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota of Boardman. The case is styled as Rick Shafer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota of Boardman, Case No. 4:25-cv-00941 (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Toyota of Boardman -- https://www.toyotaofboardman.com/ -- offer genuine Toyota service and parts alongside exceptional financing options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., 1st Avenue Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Chowning Sues Over Ticketmaster-Style Junk Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES CHOWNING, ADAM FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DOES 1- 20, Case No. 3:25-cv-04009 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2025) seeks to hold Tyler responsible for forcing Californians to pay Ticketmaster-style Junk Fees to access state parks and other public lands. In December 2023, Tyler was awarded a 10-year contract by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (Cal Parks) to design and operate ReserveCalifornia.com and other related booking interfaces (Reserve California). Tyler began operating Reserve California in August 2024. Under the Contract, Tyler is "obligated to comply with federal and California laws and regulations" in designing, operating, and otherwise performing any services related to Reserve California. Despite this, Reserve California -- as designed and operated by Tyler Technologies -- does not comply with California law. Specifically, Reserve California's booking interface fails to include all mandatory reservation processing fees in the initial price displayed to consumers, and indeed fails to add the mandatory reservation processing fees until the final check-out screens. Last minute, mandatory fees like those charged by Tyler are called "Junk Fees" by the Federal Trade Commission, and this type of Junk Fee pricing strategy is commonly called "drip pricing" or "bait and switch" advertising. Junk Fees, drip pricing, and bait and switch advertising are all illegal in California. On Oct. 7, 2023, California enacted law S.B. 478 (the "Honest Pricing Act"), which expressly banned Junk Fees by prohibiting businesses from "advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges." The Honest Pricing Act became effective on July 1, 2024. Plaintiff Chowning was over the age of 18 and was a resident of Oakland, California. The Plaintiff Fitzgerald was over the age of 18 and was a resident of Yucaipa, California. Tyler is a multibillion dollar out of state government contractor.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. John Roussas, Esq. CUTTER LAW P.C. 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 Facsimile: (916) 588-9330 E-mail: wgriffith@cutterlaw.com jroussas@cutterlaw.com - and - Karen Dahlberg O'Connell, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC 157 Columbus Ave, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: 347-395-5666 E-mail: karen@almeidalawgroup.com U CALMING CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says ------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U CALMING CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03576 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.calmingco.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 14, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Noble Kava calming tonic from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. U Calming Co. operates the website that offers an array of goods and services including information about the Company's calming tonics, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[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 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Must Produce Pay Data to Plaintiffs by May 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a case captioned as Dana Fedor et al. v. United Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00013 (D.N.M), Judge Martha Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, while denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The Court also denied the Defendant's Opposed Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff Dana Fedor worked for Defendants as a Care Coordinator from in or about November 2013 until on or about November 25, 2016. Opt-in Plaintiffs also formerly worked for Defendants as Care Coordinators. Consistent with Defendants' policies, along with their offer letter, Defendants provided Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs with a copy of Defendants' then-current arbitration policy. Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs each logged onto Defendants' PeopleSoft Human Resources Management System and electronically acknowledged receipt of, and agreement to, that arbitration policy, by clicking on the I accept button. Defendants periodically revise their arbitration policy, and on January 1, 2016, while Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs were still employed with Defendants, Defendants issued the most recent version of their arbitration policy. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff commenced the action by filing her First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint to recover overtime compensation from Defendants. Plaintiff brought collective claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action claims under New Mexico law, on behalf of herself and Opt-in Plaintiffs, who consented to join the action. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members are defined as Defendants' current and former Care Coordinators who were paid primarily on a salaried basis and whose primary responsibilities included collecting answers to standardized medical questionnaires and imputing answers from those questionnaires into Defendants' automated system. Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, arguing that this lawsuit violates the 2016 Policy, which requires arbitration of the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint and prohibits collective and class claims. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the 2016 Policy is not enforceable against them because there is no evidence that any of them signed, read or even knew about this Policy. The parties reached a settlement agreement in August 2023. To date, Plaintiffs have not agreed to file a Stipulation of Dismissal as required under the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel said they refused to close the case after "receiving calls from individuals who believed they should have been included in the settlement but did not receive a notice." The parties dispute whether those individuals should be included in the settlement. Plaintiffs counsel said defendants have not resolved the deficiencies of the class list. Defendants never approached Plaintiffs to work out an additional settlement or, alternatively, to advise that they had no intention of doing so, instead choosing to wait for the deadline to file closing documents to pass, and then, in the wake of Plaintiffs' request for sanctions, asking the Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions, asking the Court to impose sanctions on Defendants, pursuant to both its inherent powers and Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for Defendants' failure to provide complete pay data in connection with the settlement of this case. Defendants, in turn, filed their Motion to Enforce on March 7, 2024, arguing that, given Plaintiffs' groundless refusal to dismiss this matter in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court should enforce the Settlement Agreement and dismiss this matter with prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed their Motion to Strike, arguing that Defendants' Motion to Enforce is untimely, as it was filed after the Court-imposed deadline of February 28, 2024. Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Strike, and Defendants' Motion to Enforce, are now before the Court. According to Plaintiffs, by not producing complete class data, Defendants violated the Court's Order Granting Motion to Stay, and by neither producing complete class data nor curing that defect once it was identified, the Court found that regardless of Defendants' reasoning, namely, that individuals hired after January 1, 2016 were bound by the 2016 Arbitration Agreement, Defendants' failure to provide payroll data for all members of the proposed settlement class, and their failure to inform Plaintiffs of the exclusion they applied, violated the Order granting Motion to Stay and constituted bad faith. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted against Defendants under Rule 37 or, alternatively, under its inherent powers. Specifically, the Court will order Defendants to produce complete pay data (including names and contact information) for Defendants' current and former Care Coordinators, including all salaried employees who performed care coordination functions under various job titles, regardless of hire date and regardless of whether that employee signed the 2016 Arbitration Agreement, and excluding only those individuals who held the job title of Case Manager RN. The Court also will order Defendants to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred in trying to obtain a complete class list from Defendants, for the period beginning on October 4, 2023, when Plaintiffs' counsel first notified defense counsel of their concerns, and ending on February 28, 2024, when Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions. The Court directs Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorney's fees and expenses. The Court notes Defendants could not logically have filed a motion to enforce the settlement until after Plaintiffs ultimately chose the latter course. To hold Defendants to the February 28, 2024 deadline for filing a motion that could only have been filed as a reaction to Plaintiffs' refusal to file closing documents by that very same date would be nonsensical. The Court thus will not strike as untimely Defendants' Motion to Enforce, but rather will consider that Motion on its merits. The Court directs Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs complete pay data. If Plaintiffs elect to move for equitable relief from the Settlement Agreement, they must do so within 90 days of receipt of the Complete Pay Data. If Plaintiffs do not file a motion for equitable relief within 90 days of receipt of the Complete Pay Data, Defendants may file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, seeking dismissal of this case. Reasonable attorney's fees and expenses will be awarded to Plaintiffs in connection with their efforts made between October 4, 2023 and February 28, 2024 to obtain a complete class list from Defendants, in an amount to be determined by the Court following submission of the required documentation by Plaintiffs and after consideration of any timely-filed objections by Defendants. * * * Following the Court's order, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses. In addition, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an extension of time to produce the contact information and pay data. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants' request. The Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Defendants must submit the relevant data on or before May 28, 2025. UNITED STATES: Wazee's Motion to Amend Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------- Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP's motion for leave to amend its complaint against Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency and Defendant Department of the Treasury to include additional claims based on violations of the Appropriations Clause. Wazee owns common stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association. It filed a complaint alleging that the FHFA was unconstitutional in structure and function. Procedurally, on August 16, 2018, Plaintiffs Wazee, Douglas Whitley, and Lisa Brown filed the original class action complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs opposed those motions and also filed a motion for summary judgment. By Order dated July 20, 2020, the matter was placed in suspense pending the Supreme Court's disposition in Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021). On April 10, 2024, the case was removed from civil suspense. The Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report, which they did. On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Collins, holding that the statutory restriction on the President's ability to remove the Director of the FHFA -- only "for cause" -- was unconstitutional as violative of the separation of powers. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings on whether the unconstitutional removal restriction caused harm. On October 12, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of similar plaintiffs' claims, concluding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the removal restriction caused harm. Collins v. Dep't of the Treasury. While the original complaint in this matter referenced the appropriations process, such references were made only in the context of Plaintiffs' broader constitutional arguments. As such, the Court found that these references did not provide fair notice of the general fact situation or legal theory upon which Plaintiff now seeks to proceed. The proposed Appropriations Clause claims “significantly alter the nature of [the] proceeding by injecting new and unanticipated claims.” See Blake v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 259 F. Supp. 3d 249, 263 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (finding that plaintiff's RICO claims did not relate back because the original complaint did not place defendants on fair notice of such claims). The Court further concluded that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are futile. The new claims based on alleged violations of the Appropriations Clause are time-barred. The statute of limitations for civil actions against the United States is six years after the right of action first accrues. 28 U.S.C. Section 2401(a). A claim accrues when the plaintiff "has the right to assert it in court," which is "when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action." Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 603 U.S. 799, 804 (2024). Based on the procedural and factual history of this matter, the Court found that Plaintiff's claims accrued more than six years before the motion to amend was filed. The Court also found that the proposed amendments would not survive a motion to dismiss. The Court adopted the reasoning of the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, which have held that similar removal restriction and Appropriations Clause claims failed to establish a plausible entitlement to relief. See Bhatti v. Fed. House. Fin. Agency. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Faller Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO FALLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, ANDREW WITTY, and JOHN REX, Case No. 1:25-cv-03799 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased publicly traded UnitedHealth securities between December 3, 2024, and April 16, 2025, inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Dec. 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, the insurance arm of UnitedHealth from 2021 until his death, was tragically gunned down in New York City while walking to the Company's investor conference. It is commonly believed that the accused killer's motivation to attack Mr. Thompson was due to anger regarding UnitedHealthcare's policies under Thompson's leadership, including denial of coverage. With Thompson as CEO of UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare profits increased, but the Company became increasingly controversial due to denials of coverage. On Dec. 3, 2024, ahead of its December 4, 2024, investor conference in New York City, UnitedHealth introduced its 2024 outlook. The guidance included net earnings of $28.15 to $28.65 per share and adjusted net earnings of $29.50 to $30.00 per share. This guidance was materially false and misleading at the time it was issued because it omitted how the Company would have to adjust its strategy (which resulted in heightened denials compared to industry competitors) because of scrutiny from the United States Senate, as well as public scrutiny. Because of the change in strategy, the Company was deliberately reckless in issuing the 2025 guidance as it related to net and adjusted earnings per Share. On April 17, 2025, UnitedHealth shocked the market with revised full year guidance. UnitedHealth issued a press release in which it stated that its 2025 net earning outlook would be revised to $24.65 to $25.15 per share (as compared to the prior range of $28.15 to $28.65 per share), and adjusted earnings of $26 to $26.50 (as compared to the prior range of $29.50 to $30.00 per share). On this news, UnitedHealth's stock price fell $130.93 per share, or 22.37%, to close at $454.11 per share on April 17, 2025. The next day, it fell a further $28.78 per share, or 6.33%, to close at $425.33 per share on April 18, 2025. The magnitude of the April 17, 2025, drop was such that it caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall by 1.3%. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff purchased UnitedHealth securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- S.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC. and PLANNED ADMINISTRATORS INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01954 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2025) is a class action arising from VSI's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential protected health information and personally identifiable information which as a result, was stolen from VSI's systems and is now in the hands of cybercriminals. In or around February 2024, a ransomware group known as "BlackSuit" hacked into VSI's inadequately secured network environment and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential private information. According to the complaint, the data breach, which VSI failed to detect until cybercriminals had already copied and stolen Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, is the direct result of VSI's failure to implement basic data security measures or oversight over consumers' data in its custody and control. To recover for these harms, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, bring claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory/injunctive relief, and negligent hiring and supervision. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current or former employees, or dependents of current or former employees, of companies that outsourced benefit administration and data management functions to VSI. VeriSource Services, Inc. provides third-party employment and benefit enrollment, administration, and data management services to consumers in connection with employer and self-funded plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 N. Central Expressway Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Boykins Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tyieka Boykins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. CVSB2506087 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01124. On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a purported class action Complaint alleging violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Abigail Urquhart, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: abigail.urquhart@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Marc Collier, Esq. Charlotte Swart, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-5201 Facsimile: (512) 536-4598 Email: marc.collier@nortonrosefulbright.com charlotte.swart@nortonrosefulbright.com WALGREEN CO: Tucker Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sheri Tucker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 25CV114673 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04003. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a purported Class Action Complaint setting forth violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and a claim for breach of implied warranties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq. Eva Yang, Esq. Alexandra M. Perez, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com alexandra.perez@nortonrosefulbright.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Faces Wu Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- PING WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00691-VAB (D. Conn., April 30, 2025) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. In early March 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network server and stole Plaintiff's and approximately 5.5 million Class Members' sensitive, confidential private information, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are Defendant's current and former who, in order to obtain healthcare services from Defendant, were, and continue to be, required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public private information. They assert that Defendant failed to adequately protect their private information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data, says the Plaintiff. To recover from Defendant for these harms, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. is a healthcare provider furnishing a wide variety of services to Connecticut patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: (860) 296-3457 Facsimile: (860) 296-0676 E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com YALE NEW HAVEN: Mortensen Alleges Inadequate Data Security ---------------------------------------------------------- KATHRYN MORTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00690 (D. Conn., April 30, 2025) seeks to hold Yale Health responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and over 5.5 million others due to Defendant's wholly inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On March 8, 2025, Yale Health detected unusual activity on its information technology system and was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The actual data breach occurred on March 8, 2025. According to the complaint, Yale Health disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Yale Health's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was exposed and compromised in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Yale Health and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and declaratory/injunctive relief. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Yale Health as a requirement to obtain medical services from Defendant. Yale Health is a nonprofit health system that includes five hospitals, a medical foundation, various multispecialty centers and dozens of outpatient locations and ambulatory sites from New York to Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***