250526.mbx

250526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 104 Headlines 14TH & PARK: Faces Reid Suit Over Prerecorded Voice Messages 3M COMPANY: Rooker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 7 CUPS OF TEA: Slavitt Sues Over Counseling Services' False Ads ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Fort Lauderdale Suit ALLIANCE DATA: Newtyn Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. AMERICAN HONDA: Class Counsel Awarded $8.55M in Atty's Fees AMERICAN NATIONAL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ANDY FRAIN SERVICES: Farhoud Sues Over Data Breach APIPILHUASCO CONSTRUCTION: Rios Seeks Conditional Status APPLE INC: Seeks Denial of Turner Bid to Certify Class APPLE INC: Seeks to File Portions of Surreply Under Seal APPLE INC: Turner Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Drake Sues Over Unfairly Undisclosed Fees ASCENSION HEALTH: Covington-Bernal Sues Over Failure Secure Data ATALCO GRAMERCY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 AYVAZ PIZZA: Savannah Seeks to Certify Wheelchair User Class AZTECS TELECOM: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal and Berger Shareholder Suit Ongoing BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces Prado Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in N.Y. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia CACTUS COFFEE: Scheduling Conference in Perri Suit Set for June 3 CERNER CORP: Smith Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Data COOPERGENOMICS INC: Bid Dismiss Weinberg Class Suit Tossed CRAIG-HALLUM CAPITAL: Ding Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. CUTERA INC: Court Administratively Reopens Class Action Lawsuit DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Fukaya DC PORTFOLIO: Burrows Seeks OK of $3.25K Settlement Per Member DEL-ONE FEDERAL: $30K Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Approval DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Two Settlement Subclasses in Miller Certified DELTA AIR: Goodyear Seeks Production of Withheld Documents DELTA AIRLINES: Goodyear Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply DESALES UNIV: Keenhol Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement DIAGEO NORTH: Pusateri Sues Over Mislabeled Tequila Products DONALD TRUMP: WMM Bid for Class Certification Tossed DOREL JUVENILE: Stewart Balks at Car Seat Headrests' Choking Hazard ECOMMERCE INNOVATIONS: Davalos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ELEVANCE HEALTH: Miller Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ENCORE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia FAST-CHAIN INC: Barrios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Hallman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective GENERAC POWER: Seeks Denial of Juliano Class Certification Bid GENERAC POWER: Tamburri Sues Over Breach of Contract and Warranty GENERAL MILLS: Lesko Suit Removed to C.D. California GENERAL MILLS: Melendez Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal 8th Circuit GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed GREEN DOT: Trial in Koffsman Suit to Begin February 2027 GREYLOCK LOGISTICS: Prochaska Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio HARMONY LEADS: Court Bifurcates Discovery Schedule in Ragsdale IDAHO: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Class Exhibits IES COMMUNICATIONS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INDIAN HILL: R.L.K. Appeals Tossed Reconsideration Bid to 6th Cir. INSURGENT BRANDS: Battle Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS INGRAM: Doe Sues Over Failure to Protect Data LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend Ireland-Gordy Class Suit in Calif. LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Preclude Witnesses in Shorter Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd LOYA CASUALTY: Marroquin Seeks Class Certification MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Discovery in Raschbaum Suit Ongoing MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Nelson Class Suit MAXIMUS INC: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Secure Information MERRIMACK VALLEY: St. Helen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jacob Suit in Delaware MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit over Disclosures NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Guild Sues Over Unlawful Termination NET POWER: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in NC NRG ENERGY: Trial Date Still Not Expected in Mirkin Class Suit OPTAVIA LLC: Alpert Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement OTAY LAKES: Class Cert Hearing in Renn Suit Continued to Sept. 26 PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PERMIAN RESOURCES: 3Red Partners Sues Over Fixed Price of Oil PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice in Carroll QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Settlement in Mantha Suit for Court OK REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal RUGSUSA LLC: Mikula Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia RUSSELL ROAD: Moore Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action SAMUEL BLACK: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Siena SECURE GUARD: Thomas Seeks to Recover Security Guards' Unpaid Wages SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid SOTERA HEALTH: Oakland Retirement Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir SOUND ENCLAVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Claims SPIRALEDGE INC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: $6.15M Settlement in Jenkins Wins Initial OK STIFEL FINANCIAL: Sloan Sues Over Automatic Cash Sweep Programs STURM RUGER: Jones Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Suit Seeks to Certify Four Subclasses SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Suit Seeks to Certify Four Subclasses SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend 1000099739 Ontario Class Suit TEMPLE PARK: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN: Copes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TILSON TECHNOLOGY: Hals Sues Over WARN Act Violation TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Stay of Vriens Class Cert Bid TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 11 UNICE INC: Adams Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Communications UNITED LIONS: Mancillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO Bid Order in D.B.U. Suit to 10th Circuit UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Unaccompanied Children Class W.W. GRAINGER: Gardner-Keegan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties WORLD MARKET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey Suit YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Protect Health Info, Snitkoff Says ZAZZLE INC: TikTok Software Tracks Web Users' Info, Rodriguez Says ZOOMINFO TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 27, 2026 ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Colorado Consumer Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Publicity Class Suit ********* 14TH & PARK: Faces Reid Suit Over Prerecorded Voice Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ James Reid, Veronica Bramlett, and Tami Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 14th & Park, LLC, Hardeman Real Estate, LLC, and Peachtree Property Residential, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02500-TRJ (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely and repeatedly call consumers' cellular telephone numbers -- like Plaintiffs -- while leaving artificial or prerecorded voice messages to suspected homeowners in an effort to either purchase their property or gauge their interest in Defendants' real estate services. Additionally, upon information and belief, the Defendants routinely violate TCPA by placing more than one advertisement or marketing telephone call to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior express invitation or permission required by the law, says the suit. 14th & Park is a Georgia limited liability company, which operates a real estate marketing and lead generation business headquartered in Roswell, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE Suite 100 Atlanta GA 30345 Telephone: (404) 476-5305 E-mail: rachel@beal.law - and - Bryan A. Giribaldo* Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com akruzyk@pkglegal.com 3M COMPANY: Rooker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lydia Rooker; et al, and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, Inc.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2025-901378.00 was removed from the Alabama Circuit Court, Jefferson County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on May 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00734-GMB. The Plaintiffs, Lydia Rooker et al., seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these substances caused contamination of the drinking water at Plaintiffs' homes and places of work, which in turn caused them to develop certain types of cancers.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 7 CUPS OF TEA: Slavitt Sues Over Counseling Services' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- NADINE H. SLAVITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7 CUPS OF TEA, CO., d/b/a 7 CUPS, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02284 (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2025) seeks an injunction to stop 7 Cups' false and unlawful advertising and unfair competition practices, an order for disgorgement of profits, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff brings this class action after learning that 7 Cups had misappropriated and misused her reputation and experience as a therapist and social worker, falsely advertising that Plaintiff is somehow affiliated or associated with 7 Cups to lure individuals seeking therapy and counseling services within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (and beyond) into subscribing to 7 Cups' services, when in fact Plaintiff and 7 Cups have no affiliation or relationship whatsoever, in violation of the Lanham Act. The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania-licensed clinical social worker and therapist specializing in counseling adults and couples. 7 Cups owns and developed the 7 Cups: Online Therapy and Chat App, a popular virtual platform in the mental health space.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilan Rosenberg, Esq. Aaron J. Friewald, Esq. Zachary S. Feinberg, Esq. FREIWALD LAW, P.C. 123 South Broad Street Suite 2170 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 875-8000 Facsimile: (215) 875-8575 E-mail: ir@freiwaldlaw.com ajf@freiwaldlaw.com zsf@freiwaldlaw.com ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Fort Lauderdale Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Healthcare Company 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the City of Fort Lauderdale class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. On October 16, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01238, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 28, 2020 and September 26, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 21, 2024, an amended putative class action complaint was filed, asserting the same claims but expanding the proposed class period to October 18, 2024. On October 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled Dyar v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01300, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 28, 2020 and October 18, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 3, 2024, the Kachrodia and Dyar cases were consolidated. On December 10, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01447, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 8, 2020 and October 30, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A joint motion is pending to consolidate the City of Fort Lauderdale case with the Kachrodia and Dyar cases. At this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with these cases. Acadia Healthcare is an American provider of behavioral healthcare services. It operates a network of over 225 facilities across the United States and Puerto Rico. ALLIANCE DATA: Newtyn Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- NEWTYN PARTNERS, LP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Newtyn Partners, LP, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alliance Data Systems, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01451, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Plaintiffs brings this complaint against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements regarding Loyalty Ventures, which was created as the result of a November 2021 spinoff from Alliance Data Systems, through, among other things, the preparation and filing of a registration statement on Form 10 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to the Exchange Act on September 1, 2021. On Mar. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on May 31, 2024. On Mar. 20, 2025, Judge Edmund A. Sargus entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Newtyn Partners, LP, et al. v. Alliance Data Systems, et al., Case No. 25-3313, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NEWTYN PARTNERS, LP, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John C. Camillus, Esq. P.O. Box 141410 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 992-1000 Defendants-Appellees ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, et al. are represented by: Daniel J. Guttman, Esq. BAKERHOSTETLER 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1541 - and – Joseph Steven Justice, Esq. DUNGAN & LEFEVRE 210 W. Main Street Troy, OH 45373 Telephone: (937) 339-0511 AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN ARINATWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the May 14, 2025, Class Certification motion deadline to June 16, 2025 , and for any such further relief the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Relevant to the motion, if the case does not settle in short order, the Plaintiff seeks a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition(s) in order to gather evidence to use in support of his motions for class certification and/or collective action certification. The Defendant has previously permitted Plaintiff to informally interview key witnesses as part of settlement discussions. In response to Plaintiff's proposed list of draft 30(b)(6) topics, Defendant has drafted written stipulations in lieu of the deposition that Defendant believes are sufficient if a Motion for Class Certification is filed in this Court. The Plaintiff reviewed, and proposed additional stipulations, and Defendant responded, but the parties have not yet agreed on a final set of stipulations. Defendant has indicated it intends to seek a stay of discovery in the case while its motion to compel arbitration is pending. Defendant has asked Plaintiff’s consent for this motion. Plaintiff has indicated his opposition and intends to oppose that Motion. On April 14, 2025 the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline for Class Certifications. American Health is a provider of clinical laboratory services to long term care in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=57tHT7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllsc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com AMERICAN HONDA: Class Counsel Awarded $8.55M in Atty's Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YUN-FEI LOU, et al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement and granting in part motion for attorney's fees. The Court also grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, litigation costs, and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. Class Counsel is entitled to $8,555,519.50 in attorney's fees and $1,026,270.90 in litigation costs. The Plaintiffs Lindsay Aberin, Jeff Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess, John Kelly, and Joy Matza are entitled to $5,000 each as a service award. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with their terms. Class counsel shall file a post-distribution accounting within 21 days after the distribution of settlement funds. Class counsel shall file a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their post-distribution accounting. This matter is set for a further case management conference on November 18, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. The Settlement Class includes "All persons who purchased the following Acura vehicles: 2004-2008 TL, 2005-2008 MDX, or 2007-2009 RDX, in the States of California, Kansas, New York, and Washington, before the vehicles reached 10 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurred first." The Plaintiffs filed this action in 2016 seeking relief for Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s alleged violations of the consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranty laws of the states of California, Kansas, New York, and Washington, as well as claims under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. American develops and manufactures automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WX9Q6C at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN NATIONAL: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY et al., v. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS et al., (RE: THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-00541-ACR (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for: -- preliminary approval of class Action settlement, -- preliminary certification of settlement Class for settlement purposes, -- approval of form and manner of Class notice, and -- scheduling of a fairness hearing The Plaintiffs, on behalf of the American Red Cross Savings Plan, by and through their undersigned counsel, submit this Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, entered into with Defendants. American Red Cross is a US humanitarian and disaster-relief organization. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l2xrzd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net nlesser@bm.net agertner@bm.net - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com ANDY FRAIN SERVICES: Farhoud Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- Mohammad Farhoud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05252 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices and arising out of the recent data breach ("Data Breach"). This information included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, and Social Security numbers (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). Current and former employees of Defendant are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of employment, without which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employer employee company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. 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. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its employees' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. The Defendant is a company that provides security and event staffing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com APIPILHUASCO CONSTRUCTION: Rios Seeks Conditional Status -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE HUITZACHE HERNANDEZ a/k/a MICHAEL RIOS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. APIPILHUASCO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, PETER’S ATL, LLC and MIGUEL GONZALEZ, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 2:23-cv-00213-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(B). The Plaintiff proposes that notice be sent to the following collective: "All current and former employees of the Defendants who worked as laborers, machine operators, or similarly-situated hourly workers, from [3 years prior to order approving conditional certification] to Present, who were not paid overtime by Defendants for work over 40 hours in a workweek, at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay." On Oct. 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case, on behalf of himself and all those similarly-situated, to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint to make clear that the Plaintiff is also known as Michael Rios. On Feb. 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added the Defendant Peter's ATL, LLC as a Defendant, and alleged that the Plaintiff was jointly employed all three defendants. Apipilhuasco owns and operates construction companies A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4snOCK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com APPLE INC: Seeks Denial of Turner Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order that Plaintiff's motion to certify a class should be denied in its entirety. The Plaintiff's latest theory that all "misattributed" data was wrongfully used and that "misattribution is enough" here to show harm was not alleged in his Complaint and was not the basis for his Class Certification Motion. It also is a theory he expressly disclaimed to the Court. The Plaintiff's tactics are improper. But they are also futile. The Plaintiff also has not proposed a damages model that would measure economic injury to users who Plaintiff argues would have changed their settings or their behavior. Dr. Sanyal does not address this in her report. Even assuming there was a compensable economic harm to users who would have changed their settings or behavior, Dr. Sanyal offers no opinion as to what the correct measure of damages would be to compensate putative class members for this harm. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Class Certification attempts to argue that a class should be certified based on a theory of liability, injury and damages never before articulated. Plaintiff uses this new theory to argue that Apple has "fabricated" or misconstrued Plaintiff's claims and that the Court thus should disregard Apple's arguments in opposition to class certification. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yiF4XF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq. Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq. Adam J. Hunt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com CTapernoux@mofo.com AdamHunt@mofo.com APPLE INC: Seeks to File Portions of Surreply Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file under seal portions of its proposed surreply in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Apple seeks to seal limited references in its Proposed Surreply that reflect confidential, specific, detailed information regarding Apple's software development, troubleshooting, and operation, and regarding Apple's data analytics practices. Accordingly, Disclosure of such information would cause Apple competitive harm by giving third parties knowledge of Apple's business operations, strategic decision-making regarding its software development, troubleshooting, and operation, and regarding its data analytics practices, to which they would not otherwise have access. The information could be used by competitors to understand the strategic considerations of Apple's software development and data analytics practices, and it could also reveal information that may or may not be useful in addressing competitors’ own data analytics strategies and software development. The public disclosure of this information would have a chilling effect on internal business, research, and development discussions, asserts the suit. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hJq4vC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq. Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq. Adam J. Hunt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com CTapernoux@mofo.com AdamHunt@mofo.com APPLE INC: Turner Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) and the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on August 14, 2023, the Plaintiff requests that the Court consider whether material quoting, referring to, or describing material designated as "Confidential" should be filed under seal. Specifically, Defendant Apple has designated as "Confidential" certain materials that the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant Apple Inc.'s administrative motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification quotes, refers to, or describes. Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Apple, as the Designating Party, bears the responsibility to establish that its designated materials are sealable. The Plaintiff provisionally files these documents under seal to give the Defendant an opportunity to specify any reasons for keeping the documents under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c). Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmZbOI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda M. Karl, Esq. David Berger, Esq. Jane Farrell, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. Anna J. Katz, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com amk@classlawgroup.com jgf@classlawgroup.com jsun@classlawgroup.com ajk@classlawgroup.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS: Drake Sues Over Unfairly Undisclosed Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Drake, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04085 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2025), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Applebee's arising from its assessment of deceptive and unfairly undisclosed fees ("Extra Fees") on food delivery orders through its website and app. The Extra Fees include Applebee's purported "Delivery Charge", "Service Fee", and "CA Delivery Surcharge." When consumers seek to order food for delivery through Applebee's website and/or app, Applebee's prominently advertises pricing that is drastically altered by the time the payment screen populates. On the final payment screen, consumers are surprised as Applebee's surreptitiously adds a host of erroneous Extra Fees to all food delivery orders. Applebee's deceptively adds the "Delivery Charge" and "Service Fee" to all food delivery orders of consumers nationwide, and the "CA Delivery Surcharge" Fee to all food delivery orders in California. Instead, the "CA Delivery Surcharge" and "Service Fee" fees are classic examples of "junk fees." By virtue of the "CA Delivery Surcharge" being added only to delivery orders in California, and not orders for pick-up, the fee is, by definition, a delivery fee. Nevertheless, Defendant charges consumers a separate "Delivery Charge," which shows that Defendant is merely requiring consumers to pay a second payment--in the form of a junk fee--for the service that Applebee's already purports to be providing, and for which consumers are already paying. Similarly, the "Service Fee" is another classic "junk fee" that does not correspond to any actual extraneous service which would reasonably be separated from the all-in price i.e. the preparation of the food consumers are ordering. Arguably, the "services" involved in consumer purchases made in-store at Defendant's locations involve far more than those required for a delivery order, yet, upon information and belief, Defendant does not charge a "Service Fee" for its in-store purchases. Finally, the "Delivery Charge" is deceptive and unfair because Applebee's prominently advertises its food delivery services on its website and app but fails to disclose the cost of delivery until the very last step in the purchasing process. By failing to disclose its pricing upfront, Defendant undermines fair competition and gains an unfair advantage over its competitors who provide full upfront pricing, allowing consumers to adequately price compare when making consumer purchasing decisions. As a result, Applebee's misrepresents the actual costs of food and its delivery service, along with the presence and nature of the Extra Fees to consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used the Applebee's website to place a food delivery order on April 15, 2023. Applebee's is one of the world's largest casual dining brands, with over 1,500 restaurant locations in 11 countries and territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Covington-Bernal Sues Over Failure Secure Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Covington-Bernal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Case No. 4:25-cv-677 (E.D. Mo., May 12, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients for the second time in less than 8 months. The first data breach was a ransomware attack in May 2024, and second data breach that is the subject of the instant lawsuit was a cyberattack that occurred in December 2024 due to a vulnerability in third-party software used by Defendant's business partner (the "Data Breach"). According to the notification letter received by Plaintiff, the data affected included widespread categories of PII and PHI, including names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, race, gender, clinical information, places of service, physicians' names, diagnoses, billing codes, medical record numbers, insurance information, and more. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Ascension collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant. Upon information and belief, the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant was targeted for a cyber-attack due to its status as a healthcare entity that collects and maintains highly valuable Private Information on its systems, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a letter dated April 28, 2025, notifying her that she was impacted by the Data Breach. The Defendant is a Catholic health-system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com ATALCO GRAMERCY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINA BOSLEY AND SHAWN COOK, SR. CIVIL ACTION Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ATALCO GRAMERCY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02540-JTM-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered a briefing scheduling order: Deadline Date Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. May 30, 2025. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) must be exchanged no later than: Corporate Disclosure Statements May 30, 2025. pursuant to Rule 7.1 must be filed no later than: Amendments to pleadings, third-party June 20, 2025. actions, crossclaims, and counterclaims shall be filed no later than: Deadline for completing all fact discovery Sept. 26, 2025 on class certification issues: Plaintiffs' deadline for disclosing Sept. 1, 2025 class-related expert(s) and CVs: Plaintiffs' deadline for providing all Oct. 17, 2025 required expert disclosures and producing expert report(s): Defendant's deadline for providing all Nov. 21, 2025 required expert disclosures and producing expert report(s): Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class Feb. 27, 2026 Certification: Defendant's deadline to file opposition March 31, 2026 to motion for class certification: Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply to April 21, 2026 Defendant's opposition to class Certification: Atalco is a producer of alumina in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLGcfY at no extra charge.[CC] AYVAZ PIZZA: Savannah Seeks to Certify Wheelchair User Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA SAVANNAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00933-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying the proposed nationwide injunctive class of: "All wheelchair users with qualified mobility disabilities who encountered excessive sloping conditions within the Parking Areas of any AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25 locations in the United States," (2) appointing Plaintiff Alesha Savannah as class representative for the nationwide class, and (3) appointing Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP as class counsel. Ayvaz is a family owned & operated Pizza Hut franchisee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RFdU6I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stembridge, Esq. Lisa D. Taylor, Esq. STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC 2951 Piedmont Road, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: 404-604-2691 E-mail: john@stembridgetaylor.com lisa@stembridgetaylor.com - and - Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 857-5350 E-mail: ben@nshmlaw.com jordan@nshmlaw.com AZTECS TELECOM: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aztecs Telecom, Inc. The case is styled as Donny Martinez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Aztecs Telecom, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13945 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Aztecs Telecom, Inc. -- https://aztecs.net/ -- is a construction company based in Corona, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Taylor Gershman, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: zachary@lebelaw.com - and - Sage Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Mishal and Berger Shareholder Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2025, that it is currently facing a purported class action in the court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company, Boardwalk GP, LP and Boardwalk GP, LLC, regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates. Plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger initiated this action on May 25, 2018. On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to the approval of the Trial court. Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended and gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase of the company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right. On September 28, 2018, the Trial court denied the approval of the Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among other things, added Loews as a Defendant. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial court in July 2019. In October 2019, the Trial court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021. On November 12, 2021, the Trial court issued a ruling on the case. The Trial court held that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited Partnership Agreement and found that Boardwalk GP is liable to the Plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The Trial court's ruling and damages award was against Boardwalk GP, and not the company or its subsidiaries. On January 3, 2022, the Defendants appealed the trial court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court contesting the calculation of damages by the Trial court. Oral arguments were held for this case on September 14, 2022 and on December 19, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court's ruling and remanded the case to the Trial Court for further proceedings related to claims not decided by the Trial Court's ruling. Briefing by the parties at the Trial Court on the remanded issues was completed in September 2023. A hearing on the remanded issues was held at the Trial Court in April 2024. In September 2024, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendants on all of the remanded issues. On October 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs appealed the Trial Court's ruling on the remanded issues to the Supreme Court. Briefing on this appeal was completed in March 2025 and a hearing on this appeal has been scheduled to occur in June 2025. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP operate the business through its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines, LP (Boardwalk Pipelines), and its operating subsidiaries, which consist of integrated pipeline and storage systems for natural gas and natural gas liquids and other hydrocarbons based in Texas. BRENNTAG PACIFIC: Faces Prado Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA PRADO, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. BRENNTAG PACIFIC, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV13205 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2025) is a class action to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants pursuant to the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, the California Business and Professions Code, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses, and subjected them to and/or presented them with and/or required them to sign agreements that contain unlawful post-employment non-compete/non-solicitation provisions. The Plaintiff further allege causes of action for Defendants' failure to provide background check forms which comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, to their current and former employees before obtaining employment consumer reports from third parties. Plaintiff Maria Prado worked for the Defendants from approximately April 2022 through approximately May 2023 as a customer service representative. Brenntag Pacific, Inc. operates as a commodity and specialty chemical distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. Joana Fang, Esq. Jared C. Osborne, Esq. Kyle W. Wilson, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com jfang@blackstonepc.com josborne@blackstonepc.com kwilson@blackstonepc.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Martin class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6, 2021). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of universal life insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY, was initially named as a defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the United States. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Newton class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on improper factors and should have decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March 2021. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. On January 18, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend the second amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of the class sought to those who own or owned policies issued in Georgia. The motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended class action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the United States. CACTUS COFFEE: Scheduling Conference in Perri Suit Set for June 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominic Perri, v. Cactus Coffee Two LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00601-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Zipps entered an order setting a telephonic Scheduling Conference for Tuesday, June 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties are directed to confer at least twenty-one (21) days before the conference, in accordance with Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. Counsel shall file with the Court, at least seven (7) days before the scheduled conference, a Joint Report reflecting the results of their meeting and outlining the discovery plan. After the conference, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order limiting the time within which counsel may file pretrial motions, complete discovery, and file the proposed pretrial order. To the extent that the Court’s Scheduling Order differs from the parties’ proposed schedule, the provisions of the Court's Order shall supersede the parties’ proposed schedule and shall control the course of the action unless modified by subsequent Order. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tEppco at no extra charge.[CC] CERNER CORP: Smith Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Data -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00331-DGK (W.D. Mo., May 6, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data of Plaintiff and others similarly situated patients. According to the complaint, the Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft -- all because Defendants' data breach placed Plaintiff's PII/PHI right in the hands of criminals, says the suit. Cerner Corporation, d/b/a Oracle Health, Inc., is a third party vendor that provides data migration services to Union Health, a healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP • One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com COOPERGENOMICS INC: Bid Dismiss Weinberg Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEINBERG, et al., v. COOPERGENOMICS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09505 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order denying the motion to dismiss Weinberg class suit. As to Article III standing, the Defendants' best argument is as to benefit of the bargain standing not being established here. But especially in light of the Third Circuit's 2024 Huertas decision, the theory is properly pled. Accordingly, the question of what states' laws are in play is premature. If in-play state laws are meaningfully disparate from each other in terms of the bottom-line results they might produce, then there may later be a choice of law analysis to conduct. But choice of law issues is typically worked though in this District at summary judgment or during class certification, in part because the facts relevant to a choice of law analysis do not always need to be plead. There is no reason to vary from that practice here. The learned-intermediary doctrine is best assessed on summary judgment, along with the various extraneous (and non-integral) materials that make up the attachments to the Stockwell Declaration, says the Court. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. CooperGenomics offers childcare services, community food and housing, and emergency and other relief services.[cc] CRAIG-HALLUM CAPITAL: Ding Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as James Ding, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC, George Syllantavos, Jun Pei, Jun Ye, Mei (May) Wang, Xiaogang (Jason) Zhang, Case No. 2025-0519 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Craig-Hallum -- https://www.craig-hallum.com/ -- is an employee-owned, idea-driven research, trading and investment banking firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON 1000 W St 10th Fl Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 984-3889 Fax: (302) 984-3939 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com CUTERA INC: Court Administratively Reopens Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order to administratively re-open the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. CUTERA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02560-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Court is in receipt of lead plaintiff's update regarding Cutera, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Lead plaintiff informs the Court that it has agreed with Cutera on a class opt-out order that preserves the claims of lead plaintiff and the class against the non-debtor defendants and enables this action to continue against them. Defendants' motion to dismiss is pending. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 9, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cLnRiL from PacerMonitor.com. About Cutera Inc. Cutera, Inc., offers aesthetic and dermatological solutions to medical professionals worldwide. The Company designs, manufactures, and sells energy-based product platforms for medical use, as well as distributes third-party skincare products. Its portfolio includes various system platforms such as AviClear, enlighten, excel HR, excel V/V+, truSculpt, Secret PRO, Secret DUO, Secret RF, xeo, and xeo+, which allow practitioners to perform a wide range of procedures. These procedures include treatments for acne, body contouring, skin resurfacing and rejuvenation, hair and tattoo removal, the elimination of benign pigmented lesions, and vascular conditions. Many of Cutera's systems feature multiple handpieces and applications, offering customers the flexibility to upgrade their equipment. Cutera Inc. and Crystal Sub, LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 25-90088) on March 5, 2025, with $200,881,854 in total assets and $480,459,932 in total liabilities. Taylor Harris, chief executive officer, signed the petition. Judge Alfredo R. Perez presides over the case. The Debtors tapped Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP as local bankruptcy counsel; Ropes & Gray LLP as general bankruptcy counsel; Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., as investment banker; FTI Consulting, Inc. as financial advisor and Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC d/b/a Verital Global as notice, claims, solicitation & balloting agent. DAISO CALIFORNIA: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Fukaya ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAISO CALIFORNIA LLC and DAISO HOLDING USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting joint motion to modify the scheduling order: The Parties submit a Joint Motion to Modify the Hearing Date for the Motion for Class Certification previously set for August 13, 2025, at 10:00 AM. to August 26, 2025, at 10:00 AM. The previous date of August 13, 2025, was in conflict of a pretrial hearing Plaintiff's counsel had previously set in another matter. All other deadlines set in this matter as modified pursuant to the order dated April 7, 2025, shall remain as previously set. There are no other dates on calendar in this matter after the hearing on Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion. Daiso offers a wide variety of affordable household items, stationery, and Japanese snacks. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8dOq8u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, P.C. 1650 S. Amphlett Boulevard, Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 437-6840 Facsimile: (650) 403-0909 E-mail: ara@arajlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. Swedo, Esq. Sean P. Flynn, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 315 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 DC PORTFOLIO: Burrows Seeks OK of $3.25K Settlement Per Member -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Burrows, Jr., on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. DC Portfolio Services, LLC, Abrahamsen Ginden, LLC, and Joshua Gindin, Case No. 2:22-cv-00260-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting final approval to the Class Action Settlement, and -- granting Class Counsel leave to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs at a later date. The Settlement Agreement, as amended on Nov. 8, 2023, defines the Settlement Class as: The 52 natural persons identified by Defendants, against whom, on or after November 22, 2020, Abrahamsen Gindin filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of DC Portfolio Services where the complaint filed sought to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes which was described as arising from a "personal loan" when the alleged debt arose from a different type of consumer financial obligation. Accordingly, each Settlement Class Member will receive a proportionate share of $3,250.00. The Parties did not agree on the amount to propose to the Court for attorney's fees and costs until long after the settlement was reached and the initial class notice mailed. As a result, the Court ordered the Second Notice to be mailed to the Settlement Class informing them of the $66,362.50 proposed award for Class Counsel. The Plaintiff incorporates his motions for preliminary approval filed on Oct. 23, 2023, and revised and filed on Nov. 8, 2023, for a fuller description of the facts and claims. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) related to debt collection lawsuits filed by the law firm Abrahamsen Ginden, LLC, on behalf of DC Portfolio Services, LLC, a buyer of defaulted consumer debts. Plaintiff alleged Defendants violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, and misleading representations in connection with its debt collection lawsuits. DC is a company that acts as a debt purchaser or debt buyer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=71Wdqb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Ricci, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC 51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Telephone: (973) 218-2627 Facsimile: (973) 206-6955 E-mail: dricci@NJConsumerLawyer.com DEL-ONE FEDERAL: $30K Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEL-ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:21-cv-01433-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Bibas entered an order granting class certification and approving settlement. Accordingly, the plaintiff asks for $30,002 in costs. The Plaintiff has documented these costs, and they are all justified as necessary litigation expenses that helped propel the class's interests forward, the Court says. Joanne Miller sued Del-One for allegedly violating federal banking regulations and state consumer-fraud laws. She claimed that Del-One charges an overdraft fee even when the customer has enough money in her account. Del-One is a member-owned, financial cooperative in Delaware. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i9gxfJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Valerie L. Savran, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC Ontario, CA - and – Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP Wilmington, DE The Defendants are represented by: Krista M. Reale, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Wilmington, DE - and - Jason E. Hunter, Esq. Scott R. Sinson, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP Chicago, IL DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Two Settlement Subclasses in Miller Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEL-ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; DOES 1–1, Case No. 1:21-cv-01433-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: The Court certifies the following two settlement subclasses (collectively, the "Settlement Class"), composed of the following class members: Regulation E Fee Subclass -- those customers who have or had accounts with the Defendant who incurred Reg E Fees during the period beginning Oct. 7, 2020, and ending on May 19, 2024. DCFA Fee Subclass -- those customers who have or had accounts with the Defendant who incurred Reg E Fees during the period beginning Oct. 7, 2018, and ending on May 19, 2024. For purposes of both subclasses, the Settlement Agreement defines a "'Reg E Fee' as a fee charged by Defendant on signature Point of Sale Debit Card transactions, 'every day' debit card transactions, and/or any ATM transactions when the account had a positive balance at the time of the posting of the transaction." The Court appoints Joanne Miller as Class Representative and approves a service award to her in the amount of $10,000 for her substantial and proactive role in the litigation. The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. For settlement purposes, the Court also finds that Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP, and Richard D. McCune and Emily J. Kirk of the McCune Law Group, APC, are qualified, experienced, and skilled attorneys capable of adequately representing the Settlement Class, and they are approved as Class Counsel. Further, the Court approves Class Counsel's reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $383,333.33 (one-third of the Value of the Settlement), as well as reasonable costs of $30,002.00, which have been documented to date. All costs incurred in connection with providing notice and settlement claims administration services to Class Members in the amount of $25,900.00 shall be paid from the Settlement Fund as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. Del-One is a member-owned, financial cooperative in Delaware. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ABqDSa at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR: Goodyear Seeks Production of Withheld Documents ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order compelling the Defendant to produce withheld and redacted documents identified in Delta's amended privilege log. The Plaintiff and Delta conferred on this matter on April 24, 2025. Delta is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDVkpg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Madeline E. Hills, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E., Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DELTA AIRLINES: Goodyear Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a sur-reply in connection with the Defendant's pending motion for a protective order. Delta provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ID9ROV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E., Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DESALES UNIV: Keenhol Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LOGAN KEENHOL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DESALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:24-cv-01083-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All students who satisfied all or part of their payment obligations to the University for Spring 2020 for tuition and/or Mandatory Fees (including the Student Activity Fee) and who were enrolled in at least one in-person, on-campus class." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all students who had their tuition and fee obligations completely funded by DeSales University for the Spring 2020 semester; and (ii) Defendant; the Defendant's officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, and/or entitles controlled by the Defendant; and/or the Defendant's heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with the Defendant and/or the Defendant's officers. (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Jeffrey Logan Keenhol as Settlement Class Representative; (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties’ proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties’ selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed schedule; (6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Colella; and (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. DeSales offers traditional, online, and hybrid courses and programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gx4IQZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Michael Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com DIAGEO NORTH: Pusateri Sues Over Mislabeled Tequila Products ------------------------------------------------------------ AVI PUSATERI, SUSHI TOKYO INC., and CHAIM MISHULOVIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02482 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025) is a consumer protection class action lawsuit against Defendant Diageo North America for falsely marketing its highly popular tequila brands and selling adulterated tequila to consumers. According to the complaint, Diageo labels every bottle of Casamigos tequila as "Tequila 100% Agave Azul" and it labels its Don Julio bottles as "100% de Agave" and specifies on its websites that its bottles contain "100% BLUE WEBER AGAVE." The Plaintiffs paid super-premium prices for Casamigos and Don Julio tequila, but they received neither a premium product nor 100% Blue Weber Agave tequila. Instead, an investigation of Casamigos and Don Julio tequilas has shown that they consist of significant concentrations of cane or other types of alcohol rather than pure tequila. If Plaintiffs and the proposed class members had known the truth of the ingredients in the Product, they would not have bought Diageo tequilas or would have paid less. As a result, Plaintiffs bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of other consumers of Diageo Product, says the suit. Diageo North America, Inc. produces, distills, and markets alcoholic beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 594 Dean Street, Suite 24 Brooklyn, NY 11238 Telephone: (646) 543-4992 E-mail: NathanT@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert J. Tolchin, Esq. THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC 829 E. 15th Street Brooklyn, NY 11230 Telephone: (917) 405-0426 E-mail: rtolchin@berkmanlaw.com DONALD TRUMP: WMM Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.M.M., on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00059-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order that because the Supreme Court has granted relief to the putative class pending further order from that Court, the Court stays the effect of this Order pending further action from the Supreme Court. The Court, with respect for the importance of these issues and following the case law that requires it to consider these possibilities, denies the motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Three diverse petitioners bring this habeas-corpus action, which raises eight distinct claims. The potential remedies vary widely depending on which claims, if any, prevail. Nevertheless, the petitioners ask the Court to certify a class action so they can represent all aliens in custody in the Northern District of Texas "who were, are, or will be" subject to the President's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. This request relies heavily on the assumption that their first claim, which challenges the President’s invocation of the AEA, will prevail. But class certification is not the time to resolve the merits, and the Court cannot presume that this claim will succeed. Rather, the Court must follow Rule 23's mandates when determining whether class certification is appropriate. Here, Rule 23 is not satisfied. The petitioners bring many independent claims driven by individual circumstances, rendering them atypical from potential class members. The petitioners seek to certify the following as a class: "All noncitizens in custody in the Northern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua' and/or its implementation." Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JAKrxX at no extra charge.[CC] DOREL JUVENILE: Stewart Balks at Car Seat Headrests' Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNA STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00871-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., May 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who purchased a Safety First Grow and Go Sprint Car Seat that has been sold across the U.S. unfit for their intended purpose because they are dangerously unsafe for infants. On or about April 24, 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a recall on certain car seats manufactured by Safety First, believed subsidiary of Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., for a choke hazard pertaining to its car seat headrest. Through marketing and sale, the Defendant represented that the Products are safe for children. Indeed, its corporate website linked to an award for this very product promoting its safety. The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased carried the potential for choking hazards. Consumers expect the products they purchased to be safe, especially products aimed towards children. Because Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered losses, asserts the suit. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. is a juvenile products company based in Columbus, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Cox, Esq. COX LAW OFFICE 1606 N. Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 884-8550 Facsimile: (317) 660-2453 E-mail: jcox@coxlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com ECOMMERCE INNOVATIONS: Davalos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecommerce Innovations LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Davalos, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Ecommerce Innovations LLC doing business as: We The People Holsters, Case No. 5:25-cv-01151-KK-SHK (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ecommerce Innovations LLC doing business as We The People Holsters -- https://wethepeopleholsters.com/ -- intends to provide customers with access to high-quality and exceptionally crafted holsters appropriate for a full range of purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Miller Sues Over Exchange Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Eric Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., GAIL K. BOUDREAUX, FELICIA F. NORWOOD, MARK B. KAYE, and STEPHEN V. TANAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-00923-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 12, 2025), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Elevance common stock between April 18, 2024, and October 16, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging against Elevance and certain of the Company's current senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"), and arise under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, with the Medicaid redetermination process nearly complete, Defendants represented to investors that they were closely monitoring cost trends associated with the redetermination process and that the premium rates Elevance was negotiating with states were sufficient to address the risk and cost profiles of those patients staying on Medicaid programs. While Defendants acknowledged that Medicaid expenses were rising, they repeatedly assured investors that this was adequately reflected in the Company's guidance for the year. These representations were materially false or misleading. In truth, the redeterminations were causing the acuity and utilization of Elevance's Medicaid members to rise significantly, as the members being removed from Medicaid programs were, on average, healthier than those who remained eligible for the programs. This shift was occurring to a degree that was not reflected in Elevance's rate negotiations with the states or in its financial guidance for 2024. The truth began to emerge on July 17, 2024, when the Company revealed that it was now "expecting second-half utilization to increase in Medicaid" and that it was "seeing signs of increased utilization across the broader Medicaid population, including in outpatient home health, radiology, durable medical equipment, as well as some elective procedures." In response to these disclosures, the price of Elevance common stock declined by $32.21 per share, or 5.8%, from a closing price of $553.14 on July 16, 2024, to a closing price of $520.93 on July 17, 2024. Then, on October 17, 2024, Elevance announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2024, revealing that the Company had missed consensus earnings per share ("EPS") expectations for the quarter by $1.33, or 13.7%, "due to elevated medical costs in [its] Medicaid business." Elevance further revealed that it was lowering EPS guidance for 2024 from $37.20 to $33.00, or 11.3%, as it expected these Medicaid issues to continue. These disclosures caused the price of Elevance common stock to tumble by $52.61 per share, or 10.6%, from a closing price of 496.96 on October 16, 2024, to a closing price of $444.35 on October 17, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous declines in the market value of Elevance common stock when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased shares of Elevance common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Elevance is a healthcare company that, among other things, provides health insurance plans to a variety of market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph N. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW GROUP, LLC 1101 North Delaware Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Phone: (317) 633-5270 Facsimile: (317) 426-3348 Email: joe@williamsgroup.law - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: jeroen@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324 6800 Email: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com ENCORE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- enCore Energy 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On March 14, 2025, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative federal securities class action, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (the "Litigation"). The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 and principally alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) enCore lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) enCore could not capitalize certain exploratory and development costs under U.S. GAAP; and (3) as a result, the Company's net losses would materially increase. The foregoing omissions allegedly made defendants' positive public statements about Company's business, operations, and prospects materially false or misleading and artificially inflated the Company's share price during the class period. The Litigation seeks damages and costs. Management believes that this litigation is preliminary in nature and the Company has not reached a determination that an adverse outcome is probable or estimable. The Company is subject to routine litigation incidental to its business. The Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings that management believes would be likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. enCore Energy Corp. is a U.S. domestic uranium developer focused on becoming a leading in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium producer. [BN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 25-CV-004182 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02649-VMC-RDC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Bertschi, Esq. MCRAE BERTSCHI & COLE LLC 1872 Independence Square, Suite D Duwoody, GA 30338 Phone: 678.999.1102 Email: ceb@mcraebertschi.com The Defendants are represented by: Thomas Hanie Paris, IV, Esq. Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL 17 1180 Peachtree Street, 17th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (470) 298-1610 Email: tparis@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com FAST-CHAIN INC: Barrios Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fast-Chain, Inc. The case is styled as Alfredo Barrios, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Fast-Chain, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fast Chain Inc is an active interstate freight carrier based out of Monterey Park, California.[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 FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Hallman Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTNEY HALLMAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-00222-JFB-JMD (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a collective class composed of: "all current and former servers and bartenders of Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, who worked for Defendants at any time from June 14, 2021 to the present"; 2. Authorizing the expedited issuance of the notice form and the text notice to the Plaintiff's brief in support, to all class members and setting a 90-day deadline from the date of mailing of the notice for putative class members to opt into this matter; 3. Requiring the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel, within 10 days of the Court's Order, a list of all individuals meeting the class definition, in an Excel spreadsheet or other machine-readable format, with separate fields for each employee's name, last known address, phone number, and email; 4. Requiring Defendants to post the Court-approved notice and opt-in forms in conspicuous locations at all relevant worksites—including time clocks, employee bulletin boards or break rooms, and other locations where job notices are typically posted—for the entirety of the 90-day opt-in period; and 5. Granting any other relief this Court deems just and proper. Flagship is a restaurant group combing casual and elevated dining and nightlife experiences. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zX0rPO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Todd, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1501 Westport Road Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 875-3332 E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com ktodd@hkm.com GENERAC POWER: Seeks Denial of Juliano Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE JULIANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Case No. 7:23-cv-01329-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class certification should be denied because the Plaintiff cannot meet the burden of showing that common issues predominate over individual issues, the Defendant contends. Generac produces and distributes power equipment. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUxSu3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Megan M. Stacy, Esq. Kaitlin Romanelli Myers GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1120 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 787-4555 Facsimile: (919) 741-5840 E-mail: mstacy@grsm.com krmyers@grsm.com GENERAC POWER: Tamburri Sues Over Breach of Contract and Warranty ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT TAMBURRI, individually and on behalf of all members of the class similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-03752 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and breach of warranty following the installation of a 16KW Guardian Series automatic standby whole house generator on Plaintiff's property in September 2019. According to the complaint, following the installation by a Generac Independent Authorized Service Dealer, the generator did not function properly despite successive attempts by Plaintiff to resolve the issue through communications with Generac and its authorized dealers. The Plaintiff further discovered that the generator was installed with incorrect wiring, which, upon information and belief, presented an ongoing safety risk, says the suit. Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the generators, at the time of sale and thereafter, were not fit for their ordinary and intended purpose of providing Plaintiff and Class Members with safe and reliable backup power solutions. Instead, the generators suffered, and continue to suffer, from a design and/or manufacturing defect. Generac further breached its express warranties because it improperly and unlawfully denies valid warranty claims, and it has failed or refused to adequately repair the defects or replace the generators with units that are actually as represented, the suit alleges. Generac Power Systems Inc. produces and distributes power equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth McCallion, Esq. Darragh O'Boyle, Esq. McCALLION & ASSOCIATES LLP 100 Park Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 366-0884 E-mail: kfm@mccallionlaw.com GENERAL MILLS: Lesko Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Lesko, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GENERAL MILLS, INC. and LOSTMY.NAME LTD d/b/a WONDERBLY, Case No. CIVSB2506532 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernadino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-1156. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the marketing and labeling of the Fruit Snacks are false and misleading because of the "false promises that consumers who purchase the Fruit Snacks will receive a discount for a free book worth over $35.00," as part of a promotion with Wonderbly (the "Wonderbly Promotion").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com - and - Natalie K. Sanders, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: +1.310.788.9900 Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399 Email: NSanders@perkinscoie.com GENERAL MILLS: Melendez Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANTE MELENDEZ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Dante Melendez, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Mills, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03040-KMM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of chocolate flavored Cocoa Puffs cereal, Cocoa Puffs Treat Cereal Bars, Cocoa Puffs Soft Bake Oat Bars, Cocoa Puffs Brownie Crunch Cereal & Cocoa Puffs Minis Cereal. Through marketing and sale, the Defendant represented that the products are safe and effective for people, especially children, to consume. Unfortunately, the products are unfit for their intended consumption because they contain high levels of lead. The Plaintiffs purchased the products while lacking the knowledge that the products could poison those who consumed them, thus causing serious harm to those who use such products. The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies as a result of the Defendant's misconduct. On March 27, 2025, Judge Katherine Menendez granted a motion to dismiss filed by General Mills; and ruled that the Plaintiffs fail to allege standing. The appellate case is entitled Dante Melendez, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 25-1798, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on June 2, 2025; -- Appellant's brief is due on June 2, 2025; and -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DANTE MELENDEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Chad C. Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN & POLK 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 437-3148 - and – Paul Doolittle, Esq. Seth C. Little, Esq. POULIN & WILLEY 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 834-4712 (803) 222-2222 Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MILLS, INC. is represented by: S. Jamal Faleel, Esq. NORTON & ROSE 60 S. Sixth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 321-2271 GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI CRAWFORD-JOHNSON, et al., v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00842-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert Jonker entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court further entered an order that the: -- Defendant's motion to file a sur-reply opposing the Plaintiffs motion for class certification is denied, -- Plaintiffs' motion to strike supplemental authority is granted. -- motions concerning the Plaintiffs' expert witness are dismissed as moot. In sum, although there are some common questions here, the Court finds that individualized determinations of causation and damages predominate. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met the requirements for the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class action. The Plaintiffs now move to certify the following class: "All owner-occupants and renters of residential property located, in whole or in part, within the Class Area surrounding the Defendant's Facility, located at 1500 North Pitcher Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan, from Sept. 1, 2017 to the Present." The action arises out of the noxious odors allegedly disseminated by Defendant Graphic Packaging International, LLC's (GPI) industrial paper mill in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Based on these odors, the Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against GPI alleging state law claims of nuisance and negligence. Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Class Certification. The parties have also filed numerous other motions related to Plaintiffs’ expert witness. GPI is a company that manufactures recycled paperboard. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wb4CJt at no extra charge.[CC] GREEN DOT: Trial in Koffsman Suit to Begin February 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- Green Dot 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 12, 2025, that the Koffsman class suit trial is scheduled to start in February 2027. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the Company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding its business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1, 2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022, and the motion was denied on March 29, 2024. The trial on these claims is currently scheduled to begin in February 2027. Green Dot Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries is a financial technology and registered bank holding company providing a broad set of financial services to consumers and businesses including debit, checking, credit, prepaid, and payroll cards, as well as robust money processing services, such as tax refunds, cash deposits and disbursements. GREYLOCK LOGISTICS: Prochaska Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greylock Logistics, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sandra Prochaska, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Greylock Logistics, Inc., Hybrid Fleet, Inc., Waymaker Logistics, Inc., Matthew Pickett, individually, Case No. 5:25-cv-00954-BMB (N.D. Ohio, May 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Greylock Logistics, Inc. manufactures and suppliers of consumer and commercial products increase efficiency, connect with buyers, and maximize profits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Corey Asay, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS - CINCINNATI 312 Walnut Street, Ste. 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 318-4496 Email: casay@hkm.com HARMONY LEADS: Court Bifurcates Discovery Schedule in Ragsdale -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RAGSDALE and CARL YOCKMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HARMONY LEADS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02510-CNS-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan Prose entered an order granting the motion to bifurcate the discovery schedule. The parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order within 14 days of this Order proposing deadlines setting forth the scope of the first phase of discovery on the individual claims and proposed dates for completing that discovery. The court anticipates that the parties will move to quickly and efficiently complete discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual claims. Because there are discrete, narrow issues which may dispose of the Plaintiffs' individual claims, the court concludes that the most expeditious course is to limit discovery to those individual claims before authorizing discovery on the putative class claims. Doing so will save the resources of the parties and the court in the event that Plaintiffs’ individual claims are dismissed. Additionally, the court finds that setting an aggressive schedule on the individual claims will serve to promote Rule 23's goal that class certification be decided at "an early practicable time" and minimize the prejudice caused by delaying class discovery. The Plaintiffs filed suit asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that they were sent text messages without their consent. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oZ9tNj at no extra charge.[CC] IDAHO: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Class Exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MH, TB, KB, SG, AC, BM, individually, and G Doe, by and through her parents and next friends, JANE Doe and JOHN Doe, v. ALEX ADAMS, in his official capacity as the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Dr. MAGNI HAMSO, in her official capacity as the Medical Director of the Idaho Division of Medicaid and individually; and the IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00409-REP (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file Supplemental Exhibits in Support of their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs request the Court grant leave to file an email from Defendant Hamso dated June 27, 2024, regarding "ACTION HB 668 implementation (by 7/1)" and an excerpt from the deposition of Defendant Hamso conducted on April 28, 2025, regarding the contents of this email which was marked as Deposition Exhibit 64. These exhibits are relevant to address the legal issues and factual contentions raised by Defendants to oppose class certification. The relevance of Deposition Exhibit 64 to the class certification became apparent during the deposition of Defendant Hamso. Defendants are not prejudiced because they had access to this information. Dr. Hamso in Deposition Exhibit 64 explained the relevance of the hormones under the "Already in place" title. Dr. Hamso testified that Medicaid's coverage system was able to identify transgender individuals based upon their sex assigned at birth so they could implement HB 668 by terminating their gender-affirming treatment based upon their gender identity. The Defendants' objection is disingenuous because they have access to information in the Medicaid record system which will prove or disprove numerosity but are refusing to answer Plaintiffs’ discovery requesting the number of transgender individuals. Medicaid identified transgender individuals for purposes of terminated their hormone therapy to implement HB 668 and can determine the transgender individuals who submitted prior authorizations to the pharmacy division so they could continue to receive a 90 day dosage of their medications. The Court should order Defendants to disclose the number of individuals who had their hormone treatments discontinued to implement HB 668 because their gender identity did not correspond to their sex assigned at birth and who received services with a F64 CPT diagnostic code for purposes of class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GaPhqh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard A. Belodoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD BELODOFF, PLLC 1004 W. Fort St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 331-3378 Facsimile: (208) 947-0014 E-mail: hbelodoff@hotmail.com - and - Jane Gordon, Esq. JANE GORDON LAW 1004 West Fort Street Boise ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 371-4747 Facsimile: (208) 807-2290 E-mail: Jane@JaneGordonLaw.com IES COMMUNICATIONS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IES Communications LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Albert Garcia, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. IES Communications LLC, IES Holdings Inc., Case No. 25STCV13855 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." IES Communications, LLC -- https://www.iescomm.com/ -- provides the highest level of design, build, and maintenance services in the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law INDIAN HILL: R.L.K. Appeals Tossed Reconsideration Bid to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ R.L.K. is taking an appeal from a court order denying her motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled R.L.K., by her next friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Indian Hill Exempted Village School District, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00171, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins denied on Jan. 23, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff failed to show there are questions of law and fact common to all class members. On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Jan. 23 Order, which Judge Hopkins denied on Apr. 8, 2025. The Plaintiff's request that the Court certify its Order as immediately appealable was also denied. The appellate case is entitled In re: R.L.K., Case No. 25-0303, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner R.L.K., by her next friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Justin Whittaker, Esq. WHITTAKER LAW 2055 Reading Road, Suite 260 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 457-5545 Defendant-Respondent INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented by: Ryan Michael LaFlamme, Esq. ENNIS BRITTON 1714 W. Galbraith Road Cincinnati, OH 45239 Telephone: (513) 421-2540 INSURGENT BRANDS: Battle Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurgent Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Insurgent Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05203 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Insurgent Brands LLC doing business as RXBAR -- https://www.rxbar.com/en_US/home.html -- is a brand of protein bars produced.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS INGRAM: Doe Sues Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Doe and Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS M. INGRAM, Case No. '25CV1210TWRBLM (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former clients. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former clients' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims, having received breach notices. The Defendant is an immigration law firm that specializes "in STEM, entertainment professionals, and business-based immigration visas."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market Street, Ste 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend Ireland-Gordy Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Life360 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ireland-Gordy class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 14, 2023, plaintiffs Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy filed a putative class action lawsuit against Tile, Life360, and Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. An amended complaint was filed on April 26, 2024, adding named plaintiffs Melissa Broad and Jane Doe. Plaintiffs allege that Tile trackers were used by third parties to monitor their movements without their consent, and assert product liability and other claims. At this time, a loss is not probable nor estimable, and as a result, no legal accrual has been recorded on our consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2025. No litigation reserve was recorded on our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. Life360, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. Life360 operates a fast-growing social network aimed at keeping its 50- million users' "families and close friends connected." LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks to Preclude Witnesses in Shorter Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LECIA L. SHORTER, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a California Public Entity, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a California Public Entity, and, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03347-JWH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court in limine pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26 and 37, on June 6, 2025, for an Order precluding any witnesses and evidence which the Plaintiff failed to properly disclose to the County, including, but not limited to, the following: Witnesses, Exhibit, Expert Witnesses and Plaintiff's economic damages and to prohibit Plaintiff from suggesting to the jury a specific amount of non-economic damages. As further grounds for precluding the Plaintiff's witnesses and untimely designated expert witnesses, their testimony would lack any relevance to this litigation. The Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in connection with allegations that she was searched in a group setting during multiple incarcerations at the County's Century Regional Detention Facility between 2010 and 2013. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that she was subjected to allegedly unconstitutional strip searches. The Plaintiff made only one initial disclosure in this matter on July 9, 2021. The Plaintiff failed to properly or timely disclose any expert witnesses. Her expert disclosure was emailed on March 28, 2023, by her personally, six days after the expert designation cutoff of March 22, 2023; making it untimely and improper. Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles and sometimes abbreviated as LA County, is the most populous county in the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8LIGgz at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justin W. Clark, Esq. Aamir Raza, Esq. LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 959 South Coast Drive, Suite 260 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone No.: (714) 479-0180 E-mail: jclark@lbaclaw.com araza@lbaclaw.com courtemails@lbaclaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Verdin Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Verdin et al., v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:24-cv-08892-MWC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting in substantial part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification: Within five (5) days of the Order, Plaintiffs shall select a third-party administrator. Within ten (10) days of this Order, Defendant shall provide the third-party administrator and Plaintiffs, a list ("Collective Action List") in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The Collective Action List shall include each Collective Action Member's name as well as their last-known addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers. Within twenty-one (21) days of the third-party administrator's receipt of the Collective Action List from Defendant, the administrator must mail the notice and consent form to all Collective Action Members. Potential opt-in Collective Action Members shall be permitted to file consent to join forms until 60 days after the emailing or mailing of the notice. The Court finds the allegations and the modification to be sufficient. Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies the proposed collective action for purposes of notifying potential plaintiffs of the pendency of this suit. The Plaintiffs state that the Collective Action Members consist of: "Plaintiffs and all other individuals employed by the City who were employed as [sic] law enforcement officers subject to 29 U.S.C. section 207(k), who were not classified as exempt from the requirement to pay overtime compensation, who received Education Incentive pay, and who were subject to MOU Number 24 at any time between Oct. 15, 2021, and the present date." Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1shfRo at no extra charge.[CC] LOYA CASUALTY: Marroquin Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Marroquin and Juan Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Loya Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-00927-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2), on May 21, 2025. The Defendant offers affordable car insurance, customized for your needs. Our agents are ready to help with your policy. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MXNIpH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Discovery in Raschbaum Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Maiden Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that discovery is ongoing on limited basis for Raschbaum class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019. On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings' representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses. On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all Defendants. On August 6, 2021, the Court issued an order denying, in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Nelson Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Maravai LifeSciences 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Nelson stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On March 3, 2025, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain officers of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Nelson v. Maravai Lifesciences Holdings, Inc., et al. (the "Securities Class Action"). The Securities Class Action generally alleges that the Company and certain officers of the Company violated U.S. federal securities laws by making allegedly materially false or misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's stock between August 7, 2024 and February 24, 2025. The Securities Class Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The case is in its very early stages. Various motions to appoint a lead plaintiff are currently pending with the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Securities Class Action. Currently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss or range of loss that may arise from the Securities Class Action. Maravai is a life sciences company which provides products to enable the development of drug therapies, diagnostics, novel vaccines, and support research on human diseases worldwide.[BN] MAXIMUS INC: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00815 (E.D. Va., May 12, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 29, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On April 29, 2025, Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted by the Data Breach. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from improper access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a government services company that provides administrative and other services for various government programs.[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 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com MERRIMACK VALLEY: St. Helen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Arvid St. Helen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merrimack Valley Plumbing LLC, Jonathan Haigh, and Matthew Martin, Case No. 2577CV00501-D (Mass. Commonwealth Super. Ct., Essex Cty., May 12, 2025), is brought claiming that the Defendants: have violated the Massachusetts overtime law, by failing to pay overtime compensation to their non-exempt field employees; and have violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, by failing to pay their non-exempt field employees within six days of the termination of the pay period. The Plaintiff regularly worked 60+ hours per week. Despite the fact that its Field Workers, like the Plaintiff, regularly work over 40 hours per week, MVP does not pay them overtime compensation at time and one half their regular rate, separate and apart from any other compensation it pays them. MVP also pays all of its Field Workers seven days after the termination of each pay period, instead of within six days as required by the Wage Act., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an MVP Field Worker from early February 2025 to April 29, 2025. MVP provides HVAC and plumbing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafrant, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-723-7700 Fax: 617-227-0313 Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Jacob Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- Microvast 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jacob class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Stephen Vogel, Ruth Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger, Amy Butte, Yang Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng have been named as defendants in a litigation filed in the Court of Chancery captioned Matt Jacob v. Stephen A. Vogel, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0600-PAF (Del. Ch.) (filed July 07, 2022). The plaintiff is seeking to certify the litigation as a stockholder class action. The complaint alleges that Stephen Vogel, Ruth Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger and Amy Butte breached their fiduciary duties in connection with Tuscan's acquisition of Microvast, Inc., including by making inadequate disclosures concerning the projected earnings of Microvast, Inc. The complaint further alleges that once the earnings of the combined company became public, the Company's stock dropped, causing losses to investors. The complaint also alleges that Yang Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng aided and abetted these purported breaches. Certain defendants have answered the complaint, and certain defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which they argued on April 03, 2025. The Court has not yet decided those motions. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit over Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2025, that on February 4, 2025, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its executives captioned "Waterford Twp. Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al.," No. 25-cv-220 (W.D. Wash.). It alleges that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or omissions relating to its business, including with respect to its business relationship with Nvidia Corporation. It seeks unspecified amounts of damages and/or attorneys' fees and other relief. The company operates in the design, development, marketing and sale of high-performance, semiconductor-based power electronics solutions for the enterprise data, storage and computing, automotive, communications, consumer, and industrial end markets. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Guild Sues Over Unlawful Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Authors Guild, William Goldstein, Elizabeth Kadetsky, Valerie Orlando, Katalin Balog, Benjamin Holtzman, Lee Jasperse, and Nicole Jenkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES; MICHAEL MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; UNITED STATES DOGE SERVICE; AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of the United States DOGE Service; NATE CAVANAUGH, in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or the General Services Administration; and, JUSTIN FOX, in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or the General Services Administration, Case No. 1:25-cv-03923 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2025), is brought to request that the Court declare unlawful and set aside the Mass Termination and accompanying Termination Notices, and enjoin Defendants from further actions that violate NEH's governing statute, the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), the Impoundment Control Act, and the Constitution. The Defendants' decision to implement the Mass Termination and issue the Termination Notices was not only utterly unexpected and unprecedented--it was flagrantly unlawful. The Mass Termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because Defendants' unreasoned, unexplained departure from prior agency policy to cancel all grants regardless of circumstances was arbitrary and capricious, and Defendants are withholding and redirecting money Congress appropriated for grantees like Plaintiffs, in violation of multiple statutes. The Mass Termination also violated the Impoundment Control Act and multiple appropriations statutes, which require the President to spend money Congress has appropriated for a particular program on that program, and not redirect that money to an unrelated program simply to better fit the President's priorities. Defendants' actions also violated the appropriations statutes simply because the President would prefer to spend the money differently. Finally, Defendants' Mass Termination violated the First Amendment, because the Termination Notice and other evidence make clear that the Executive Branch disfavors the grantees' speech based on its assessment of that speech's content and viewpoint. separation of powers, which similarly prohibits the Executive Branch from overriding, says the complaint. The Plaintiff The Authors Guild was founded in 1912 and is a national non-profit membership association of more than 14,000 professional, published writers of all genres. National Endowment for the Humanities is a federal agency headquartered in Washington, DC, responsible for administering the NEH Grants at issue in this litigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yinka Onayemi, Esq. Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. Amanda Vaughn, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street, NW, Ste. 304 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 619.507.4182 Email: yinka@fairmarklaw.com jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com amanda@fairmarklaw.com NET POWER: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit in NC ------------------------------------------------------------------ NET Power 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On April 18, 2025, an alleged stockholder of the Company (the "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President and Interim Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer and its former President and Chief Operating Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The Complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons and entities other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between June 9, 2023 and March 7, 2025 and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including the timing and costs of developing Project Permian. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims brought by the Plaintiff in this matter. The Company cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom. Net Power is a clean energy technology company. Its business is centered around its so-called "Net Power Cycle" technology, which is a purported novel power generation system designed to produce reliable and affordable electricity from natural gas while capturing virtually all atmospheric emissions. Net Power has a facility located in La Porte, Texas, which it uses to demonstrate the viability of the NET Power Cycle, referred to as "La Porte" or the "Demonstration Plant."[BN] NRG ENERGY: Trial Date Still Not Expected in Mirkin Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy 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 12, 2025, that no trial date is expected for Mirkin class suit before the Fall of 2025. Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) — XOOM Energy is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, alleging that XOOM Energy breached its contractual duty to set customer variable rates based on actual and estimated supply costs. The Court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin's expert reports. The Court granted XOOM's motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. The Court is considering whether class certification is still appropriate. Recently, this matter was moved to a new judge for further handling. A trial setting is not expected before Fall 2025. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM acquisition. NRG Energy, Inc. is an American energy company, headquartered in Houston, Texas. It was formerly the wholesale arm of Northern States Power Company, which became Xcel Energy, but became independent in 2000. NRG Energy is involved in energy generation and retail electricity. OPTAVIA LLC: Alpert Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA ALPERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00434-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for entry of an order on May 23, 2025: 1. Finally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class comprised of: "California customers enrolled in Optavia Premier from Oct. 1, 2017 to March 17, 2022 and who had one automatic shipment and then cancelled; 2. Finally approving the class action Settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable. In sum, all the factors that supported preliminary approval remain unchanged and support final approval. And the one new factor—the reaction of the Settlement Class—was entirely positive. The Court should finally approve the settlement and certify the Settlement Class, asserts the suit. Optavia is a company that designs and develops proprietary products and programs dedicated to health and well being solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a5jsUq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com - and - Kevin W. Fay, Esq. GOLOMB LEGAL, P.C. One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, #1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: kfay@golomblegal.com OTAY LAKES: Class Cert Hearing in Renn Suit Continued to Sept. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT RENN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. OTAY LAKES BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01139-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting the Defendant's ex parte application to continue hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification and referring remaining issues to the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification currently scheduled for June 27, 2025, shall be continued to Sept. 26, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The Defendant's opposition, currently due to be filed and served on May 16, 2025, shall be continued to Aug. 8, 2025. The Plaintiff's reply brief, currently due to be filed and served on May 30, 2025, shall be continued to Aug. 22, 2025. On May 5, 2025, the Defendant filed an ex parte application seeking relief on discovery related issues and a request to continue the motion for class certification hearing and related briefing schedule. The Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 8, 2025. At a recent mandatory settlement conference on April 29, 2025, before Magistrate Judge Major, Defendant stated, for the first time, that he would like new counsel in light of the discovery order that imposed a sanction of $19,463 against it and defense counsel. Otay Lakes offers a variety of unique and flavorful beers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JjTXub at no extra charge.[CC] PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Castillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Pictures Corporation. The case is styled as Cesario E. Castillo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, Case No. 25STCV13877 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Paramount Pictures Corporation -- https://www.paramountpictures.com/ -- commonly known as Paramount Pictures or simply Paramount, is an American film production and distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: 3Red Partners Sues Over Fixed Price of Oil ------------------------------------------------------------- 3Red Partners LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC., EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC., DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC., EOG RESOURCES, INC., HESS CORPORATION, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, SCOTT D. SHEFFIELD, JOHN B. HESS, and JOHN DOES 1-60, Case No. 1:25-cv-00447 (D.N.M., May 12, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production. Defendants: fixed, raised, and maintained the price of oil and crude oil futures contracts throughout the United States in violation of the Sherman Act; and manipulated the price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") crude oil futures contracts and the commodity underlying the contracts in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act ("CEA"). Demand for refined products, such as gasoline, and thereby oil prices, recovered and ultimately increased at a rapid rate in 2021. The crude oil price increase following COVID-19 was exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022, which led to sanctions that largely sequestered Russian oil from the global market. This extended run of historically high crude oil prices provided prime market conditions for agile swing producers like Defendants to increase production. The Defendants did not take advantage of this market opportunity. Departing from their historical practice and rational independent self-interest, each Defendant limited their domestic shale production growth. No Defendant would do this on its own, as competitors would take advantage of the market conditions and the ability to sell more oil at higher prices. Instead, Defendants, in collusion with each other, and in collusion with OPEC, agreed to constrain supply and raise prices, which would lead to higher profit margins. The Defendants' agreement to limit their respective shale production volumes has had the effect of fixing and/or stabilizing at an artificially high-level U.S. crude oil prices, which includes the price of key commodities futures contracts (e.g., WTI futures contracts), financial instruments that are designed to mitigate price uncertainty. The Defendants' cartel is a per se unlawful restraint. Plaintiff and Class members were active participants in futures markets and suffered substantial harm from the supracompetitive and artificial prices they paid which were directly distorted by the cartel's efforts to constrain domestic production of shale oil in the United States. They bring this suit to recover that loss, says the complaint. The Plaintiff traded crude oil futures contracts, the prices of which are directly linked to WTI crude oil. Permian Resources Corporation, formerly known as Centennial Resource Development, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Midland, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Beck, Esq. PEIFER, HANSON, MULLINS & BAKER, P.A. 20 First Plaza Center, Suite 725 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 247-4800 Email: mbeck@peiferlaw.com - and - Sarah E. Flohr, Esq. David E. Kovel, Esq. James A. Isacks, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Phone: (212) 371-6600 Email: dkovel@kmllp.com sflohr@kmllp.com jisacks@kmllp.com - and - Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Cormac H. Broeg, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 767-5180 Email: afata@kmllp.com cbroeg@kmllp.com PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice in Carroll ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIOBHAN CARROLL and ALAN LUKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-09217-SRM-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena R. Murillo entered an order: -- approving the Parties' joint stipulation to stay proceedings; -- denying without prejudice the motion for class certification and motion to exclude birny Birnbaum; and -- vacating hearings on June 12, 2025. The case is stayed pending the resolution of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exch., California Court of Appeal Case No. A169729, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Day v. GEICO, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 24-2201. The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report about each appeal every 90 days until the stay is lifted. The first status report is due Aug. 9, 2025. The Court also denies without prejudice the motion for class certification, and motion to exclude Birny Birnbaum, pending resolution of Davis and Day. Accordingly, the hearings on June 12, 2025, for both motions are vacated. The parties may refile the motions but must first submit a proposed briefing schedule and hearing date to hear both these motions within 7 after the latest of the two appeals is decided. Progressive specializes in commercial insurance and offers a range of commercial insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqNnVu at no extra charge.[CC] QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Settlement in Mantha Suit for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------- LendingTree, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the Quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on or about October 29, 2019, a Joseph Mantha filed a class action lawsuit against QuoteWizard.com, LLC alleging claims in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On August 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts granted the plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A trial date has been set for November of 2025. The company participated in a mediation in April 2025 and reached a preliminary agreement on the terms of settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the court and is payable in three equal installments, with the first payment due in the fourth quarter of 2025, the second payment due in the first quarter of 2026 and the final payment due in the second quarter of 2026. LendingTree, Inc. completed the acquisition of QuoteWizard.com, LLC in November 2018. LendingTree, Inc. is the parent of LT Intermediate Company, LLC, which holds all of the outstanding ownership interests of LendingTree, LLC, and LendingTree, LLC owns several companies. It offers consumers tools and resources, including free credit scores, that facilitate comparison-shopping for mortgage loans, home equity loans and lines of credit, auto loans, credit cards, deposit accounts, personal loans, small business loans, insurance quotes, sales of insurance policies, and other related offerings. REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing the filing of the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification, and any related exhibits under seal. Accordingly, the Defendants have designated as confidential several documents, deposition transcripts and testimony, and other evidence, such as Allied's Fourth Supplemental Answers and Objections to the Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. The Plaintiff finds it necessary to attach and cite these confidential materials throughout its Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Certification, and as Exhibit(s) in support of same. In short, Plaintiff believes this evidence strengthens its position and serves as valuable evidence for the Court's consideration. The Plaintiff further believes Defendants' confidentiality designations are best honored by filing the necessary materials under seal, and that this will not result in prejudice to any party. In accordance with Amended Local Rule 13.05, the Plaintiff therefore moves the Court to enter an Order authorizing same. Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection and disposal services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yuV6vq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com tanner@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 802-7730 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pietoso Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC. D/B/A CAFE NAPOLI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing the filing of the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification, and any related exhibits under seal. Accordingly, the Defendants have designated as confidential several documents, deposition transcripts and testimony, and other evidence, such as Allied's Fourth Supplemental Answers and Objections to the Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. The Plaintiff finds it necessary to attach and cite these confidential materials throughout its Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Certification, and as Exhibit(s) in support of same. In short, Plaintiff believes this evidence strengthens its position and serves as valuable evidence for the Court's consideration. The Plaintiff further believes Defendants' confidentiality designations are best honored by filing the necessary materials under seal, and that this will not result in prejudice to any party. In accordance with Amended Local Rule 13.05, the Plaintiff therefore moves the Court to enter an Order authorizing same. Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection and disposal services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nC7fTt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com tanner@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 802-7730 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com RUGSUSA LLC: Mikula Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kristin Mikula, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 25CV003206 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 12, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02640-VMC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented the reference prices, strikethrough prices, and/or discounts for products available on the Defendant's website ("Products") in order to Induce consumers, including Plaintiff, "into making a purchase they otherwise would not have made." The Complaint asserts five causes of action against Defendant for: Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment In the Alternative, Fraud, Breach of Express Warranty, and Violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ("FBPA"). The Plaintiff asserts her claims individually and on behalf of a putative class comprising "thousands" of Georgia residents who purchased one or more Products advertised at a discount on Defendant's website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Irby, Esq. LYONS IRBY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2201 Arlington Ave S Birningham Alabama 35205 Email: brent@lyonsirby.com - and - Julian Diamond, Esq. Matthew Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Email: idiamond@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com - and - Simon Franzmi, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Email: simon@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Megan Mathews Noble, Esq. DREW ECKL & FARNHAM, LLP 303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3500 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 885-6142 Facsimile: (404) 876-0992 Email: NobleM@deflaw.com RUSSELL ROAD: Moore Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSELYN MOORE, on behalf of herself, as an individual, and those Similarly Situated, v. RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND BEVERAGE, LLC d/b/a CRAZY HORSE 3 GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, and NANDO SOUTILLIO, an individual; DOES 1-10 and ROE ENTITIES 1-10, inclusive. Case No. 2:24-cv-02341-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) Conditionally certifying the following FLSA collective action: "All adult Entertainers who worked for the Defendants during the three (3) years preceding this lawsuit;" (b) Requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all adult entertainers who worked in the past three (3) years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, e-mail address, and last four (4) digits of their social security number; (c) Authorizing notice in the form and manner requested; (d) Tolling the statute of limitations in this matter, nunc pro tunc to the entry of an Order on this Motion, for all person who may opt-in to this litigation; (e) Fixing the bar date of 60 days from the date on which notice and opt-in forms are first mailed, for individuals to join the lawsuit; and (f) Affording such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants kept a portion of tips paid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants' customers in the form of fees, fines, mandatory charges, and other payments to Crazy Horse employees, such as the managers, house moms, floor guys, and disc jockeys. Russell owns and operates an adult entertainment club in Las Vegas, Nevada. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XNyTwT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Travis Buchanan, Esq. F. TRAVIS BUCHANAN, ESQ., & ASSOC., PLLC 701 East Bridger Ave., Suite 540 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 331-5478 Facsimile: (702) 629-6919 E-mail: Travis@ftblawlv.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM 1560 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-2244 Facsimile: (321) 594-7316 E-mail: Cleach@theleachfirm.com SAMUEL BLACK: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Siena ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIENA LENDING GROUP LCC, v. SAMUEL P. BLACK, III, Case No. 1:25-cv-02794-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: The Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 3, 2025. The Plaintiff served defendant Black on April 9, 2025, making defendant's answer due April 30, 2025. Although that date has come and gone, defendant has not appeared or filed an answer to the complaint. To date, plaintiff has not requested a certificate of default. Accordingly, if defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint before May 30, 2025, plaintiff shall, on that date, either file a stipulation granting defendant additional time or apply for entry of default. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U11HBZ at no extra charge.[CC] SECURE GUARD: Thomas Seeks to Recover Security Guards' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- AARON THOMAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SECURE GUARD PROTECTION AGENCY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03729 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025) seeks to recover (1) unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime, due to time-shaving, (2) unpaid overtime wages due to a failure to compensate at a blended overtime rate, (3) statutory penalties, (4) liquidated damages; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, potential collective members, and putative class members are current and former security guards and other similarly positioned employees of Defendant and were victims of Defendant's schemes to underpay employees. Specifically, despite requiring employees to work hours beyond their shift each day, the Defendant would only compensate employees based on their schedules. The Defendant's system resulted in both pre-and-post shift timeshaving. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant breached its obligation to pay New York's prevailing wage laws under a breach of contract theory, on the grounds that he and Prevailing Wage Subclass Members are third-party beneficiaries to the contracts that Defendant entered into with the relevant public agency, where Defendant expressly or impliedly agreed to pay legally required prevailing wages for all hours worked and supplemental benefits. Secure Guard Protection Agency LLC operates a security and private investigation company which provides services to both sites throughout New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC and DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a/ UNDERGROUND ELEPHANT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order by extending expert discovery and the subsequent deadlines: Disclosure of rebuttal experts: June 6, 2025 Expert discovery cut-off: July 2, 2025 Motion for class certification: Aug. 8, 2025 Dispositive motions: The later of 45 days after ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, or, if no such motion is filed, by Sept. 5, 2025. On Sept. 12, 2024, Defendant Digital Media Solutions filed a Notice of Suggestion on Pendency of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay of Proceedings based on its filing voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Code. A copy of Parties' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0fmKoY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Ext.14 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7030 E-mail: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com SOTERA HEALTH: Oakland Retirement Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sotera Health Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00143, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sotera common stock: (i) pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around November 20, 2020 (the "IPO"); (ii) pursuant and traceable to the Company's secondary public offering conducted on or around March 18, 2021 (the "SPO," and together with the IPO, the "Offerings"); and (iii) between November 20, 2020 and September 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Aug. 2, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the Plaintiffs opposed on Sept. 20, 2023. On Mar. 19, 2025, Judge Charles Esque Fleming entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss holding that the Plaintiffs failed to plead actionable, material misstatements or omissions with particularity to support their claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a)–(c) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The action was, hence, dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Sotera Health Company, et al., Case No. 25-3311, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. MANSOUR GAVIN 1001 Lakeside Avenue, E., Suite 1400 North Point Tower Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 523-1500 Defendants-Appellees SOTERA HEALTH COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 - and – William J. Trach, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (617) 948-6000 - and – John M. Alten, Esq. UB GREENSFELDER 1660 W. Second Street, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 583-7000 SOUND ENCLAVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hedges Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SOUND ENCLAVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03747 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.enclaveaudio.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, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 18, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a CineHome Theater System from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her 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. She 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 suit. 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. The Sound Enclave LLC operates the website that offers audio products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SPIRALEDGE INC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRALEDGE, INC., D/B/A SWIMOUTLET.COM, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03758 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.swimoutlet.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now 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. Spiraledge, Inc. operates the website that retails swimwear, swim gear, and accessories.[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 STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: $6.15M Settlement in Jenkins Wins Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JENKINS, v. STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05127-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order granting motion to certify settlement class and preliminary approval of classwide settlement: Accordingly, the Court will separately enter the parties' proposed order on preliminary approval. The Settlement Class meets the requirements for preliminary certification, the Court says. Jenkins filed this putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging that Steelscape violated the Minimum Wage Act, chapter ("MWA"), the Industrial Welfare Act ("TWA"); and the Wage Rebate Act. Proposed Settlement Terms The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: "the Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked at the Kalama facility in Washington at any time during the Class Period (from Jan. 16, 2021 to Mar. 7, 2025) and for whom damages are calculated as owing by the Plaintiff's expert, except any person who timely opts out of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Agreement provides that Steelscape will pay a gross amount of $6,150,000 to be used for payments to class members as well as costs of administration and permitted attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The value per class member is $24,650. Steelscape is a manufacturer of coated and painted steel products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVmBXf at no extra charge.[CC] STIFEL FINANCIAL: Sloan Sues Over Automatic Cash Sweep Programs --------------------------------------------------------------- JEB D. SLOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., and STIFEL BANK & TRUST, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00634 (E.D. Mo., May 5, 2025) is a class action to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to Stifel's Automatic Cash Investment Service, which offers two automatic cash sweep programs: the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program and Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program for Retirement Accounts. According to the complaint, under these programs, the Defendants sweep idle cash balances from customers' securities accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts at banks affiliated with or otherwise selected by Defendants. The cash sweep accounts are highly lucrative for Defendants and Stifel's banks but pay unreasonably low interest rates to customers. As such, the Defendants use them to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers. In 2023, for example, Stifel reported that its banking unit earned an average of 6.08% interest on bank deposits, of which customer cash swept under Stifel's cash sweep programs represented an average of over $9 billion. In exchange for its access to customer cash, however, Stifel's banks paid rates of interest as low as 0.15%. The staggering difference, or spread, between the miniscule rates passed along to customers and the average returns earned from the use of this low-cost cash contributed in large part to Stifel's record net interest income of over $1 billion for the year, says the suit. The Defendants' use of their sweep programs to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Plaintiff held both a Roth IRA and Traditional IRA account with Stifel during the relevant time period. Stifel Financial Corporation is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com - and - Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: Adam@edelsberglaw.com STURM RUGER: Jones Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK JONES, MICHELLE GOULD, DICKY WARREN, and CARL JUNG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC., and FREESTYLE SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: 1. Preliminarily approve the Settlement described in the Settlement Agreement; 2. Provisionally certify the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes only; 3. Approve the Notice program set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including the use of Notices; 4. Designate Plaintiffs Mark Jones, Michelle Gould, Dicky Warren, and Carl Jung as Class Representatives; 5. Designate Justin C. Walker of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Mason A. Barney of Siri & Glimstad LLP as Settlement Class Counsel; 6. Approve the retention of Verita Global, LLC, as Settlement Administrator; 7. Approve the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement for Settlement Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement; 8. Approve the use of a Claim Form; 9. Stay the Action or otherwise adjourn litigation deadlines pending Final Approval of the Settlement; 10. Stay and/or enjoin, pending Final Approval of the Settlement, any actions brought by Settlement Class Members concerning Released Claims; and 11. Schedule a Final Approval Hearing for a time and date convenient for the Court, at which the Court will conduct an inquiry into the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, final approval of the Settlement, and Settlement Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards for the Class Representatives. Sturm is an American firearm manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BMaHwg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin C. Walker, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, 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 jwalker@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (847) 208-4585 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 23-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Suit Seeks to Certify Four Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AMATO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed state subclasses, -- appointing Tresco, Sandoval, Hinshaw and Moore as subclass representatives, and -- designating Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. and Thomas P. Sobran, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that since the proposed state subclasses are ascertainable and satisfy Rule 23(a) requirements for numerosity (thousands of proposed class members at minimum), commonality (numerous common questions and issues exist), typicality (Plaintiffs share identical claims with other class members) and adequacy (Plaintiffs have non-contradictory aligned interests with other class members and have retained competent counsel). Common questions of vehicle defect and economic damages predominate which can be ascertained on a subclass-wide basis. Class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating the consolidated cases, asserts the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs propose the following subclasses for certification: New York Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of New York ("proposed New York subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release. Indiana Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Indiana ("proposed Indiana subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Arizona Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Arizona ("proposed Arizona subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Michigan Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Michigan ("proposed Michigan subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=69QpT7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. Andre J. Arias, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone:(201) 391-7000 - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (781) 741-6075 Facsimile: (781) 741-6074 SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Suit Seeks to Certify Four Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO AQUINO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00990-KMW-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed state subclasses, -- appointing Tresco, Sandoval, Hinshaw and Moore as subclass representatives, and -- designating Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. and Thomas P. Sobran, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that since the proposed state subclasses are ascertainable and satisfy Rule 23(a) requirements for numerosity (thousands of proposed class members at minimum), commonality (numerous common questions and issues exist), typicality (Plaintiffs share identical claims with other class members) and adequacy (Plaintiffs have non-contradictory aligned interests with other class members and have retained competent counsel). Common questions of vehicle defect and economic damages predominate which can be ascertained on a subclass-wide basis. Class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating the consolidated cases, asserts the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs propose the following subclasses for certification: New York Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of New York ("proposed New York subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release. Indiana Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Indiana ("proposed Indiana subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Arizona Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Arizona ("proposed Arizona subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Michigan Subclass: "All owners and former owners, lessees and former lessees of class vehicles who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State of Michigan ("proposed Michigan subclass members")." Excluded from any diminution of value class are class members who sold their vehicles prior to the SoA May 2018 press release." Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QstVFk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. Andre J. Arias, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone:(201) 391-7000 - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (781) 741-6075 Facsimile: (781) 741-6074 SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend 1000099739 Ontario Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer 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 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the 1000099739 Ontario class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada. On November 22, 2024, a putative class action claim was filed against the Company in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada, captioned 1000099739 Ontario Ltd. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. CV-24-00731863-OOCP. The claim alleges that the Company violated Common Law (primary and secondary market misrepresentations) and the Ontario Securities Act, due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company's financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based provider of accelerated compute platforms that are server and storage systems. TEMPLE PARK: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc. The case is styled as Mirna A. Tellez Flores, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc., Case No. 25STCV13854 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Temple Park Convalescent Hospital offers skilled nursing, rehabilitation services, and personalized care in a supportive environment.[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 THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN: Copes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc. The case is styled as Blake A. Copes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc., Case No. 25CV122510 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services -- https://www.thyssenkrupp-supply-chain.com/ -- deliver reliable and custom warehousing, transportation, and quality solutions to support the renewable energy, automotive, electric vehicle, industrial manufacturing, and eCommerce industries.[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 TILSON TECHNOLOGY: Hals Sues Over WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Hals, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Tilson Technology Management, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01621-KML (D. Ariz., May 12, 2025), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant, his employer for WARN Act purposes. Over the last 90 days, upon information and belief, the Defendant abruptly terminated several groups of employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, completely shutting down the Facility and terminating approximately 117 employees, including Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on or around May 5, 2025 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was terminated on May 6, 2025, as part of a mass layoff without proper notice. The Defendant operates a construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lincoln Combs, Esq. O'STEEN MACLEOD COMBS PLC 300 W. Clarendon Ave., Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85013-3424 Phone: (602) 252-888 Fax: (602)-274-1209 Email: lcombs@omclawyers.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Stay of Vriens Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying class certification pending a ruling on their previously filed motions to compel arbitration, and/or extending the briefing deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the pending motions to compel arbitration have been decided and the Defendants have an opportunity to conduct pre-class certification discovery. The Defendants adopt and incorporate herein any arguments and/or basis in support of staying submittals and a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification advanced by other defendants to the extent applicable. Accordingly, the Court should stay the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and extend the briefing deadline to allow the Defendants the opportunity to conduct discovery with respect to class certifications issues. The case arises out of alleged construction deficiencies concerning approximately 11,000 single family homes that were constructed in Beaufort, Charleston, Dorchester, Berkeley, Georgetown, and Horry County. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from alleged defective construction and/or work performed by the Defendants on certain homes of either the proposed Upstream Subclass, who purchased their home directly from Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. ]or the proposed Downstream Subclass, who are subsequent purchasers. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege defects in the roof systems claiming they have "non-compliant underlayment and non-compliant underlayment fastener patterns." Tip Top is a locally owned and operated roofing company. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southern Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc., A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SxKJgO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin W. Mims, Esq. Whidbee S. Perrin, Esq. Rachel N. Stewart, Esq. LUZURIAGA MIMS, LLP 1156 King Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 410-4713 E-mail: kmims@lmlawllp.com wperrin@lmlawllp.com rstewart@lmlawllp.com TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by July 11 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frederick-Osborn v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting stipulation to revise briefing and hearing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class certification. -- Deadline for Dr. Killingsworth's May 30, 2025 revised report: -- Deadline for Dr. Killingsworth's June 13, 2025 continued deposition: -- Defendants' opposition to class July 11, 2025 certification: -- Plaintiff's reply in support of Aug. 8, 2025 class certification: -- The Court will hear the motion on: Sept. 25, 2025 The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination. Twitter was an American social media company based in San Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X.[CC] UNICE INC: Adams Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Communications ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gbemisola Adams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNICE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04273 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2025), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by the Plaintiff to protect her privacy rights; namely, the right to be left alone from unwanted telemarketing communications. The Plaintiff brings this suit in an effort to stop companies like the Defendant from sending text messages to her and the putative class members' phones despite the fact that the Plaintiff and the putative class members expressly requested the Defendant stop sending them text messages, and the Defendant expressly promised to stop sending text messages to the Plaintiff and the putative class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received text messages to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's business is selling a variety of human hair products, including, but not limited to, wigs and extensions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jcshah@millershah.com kctang@millershah.com - and - Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Email: CRoberts@butschroberts.com UNITED LIONS: Mancillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Lions Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Dana Mancillas, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. United Lions Corporation, Radisson Hotel Santa Maria, Case No. BCV-25-101741 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 12, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." United Lions Corporation doing business as Radisson Hotel Santa Maria is a business-friendly hotel in Santa Maria.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO Bid Order in D.B.U. Suit to 10th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit entitled D.B.U., et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-CV-01163-CNS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs D.B.U. and R.M.M., Venezuelan nationals, assert that they may be imminently deported to El Salvador or Venezuela following a proclamation signed by President Donald J. Trump on March 14, 2025, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 providing that "all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies. On Apr. 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for TRO, which Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney granted on Apr. 22, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that preliminary injunctive relief, in the form of a temporary restraining order, is proper. The appellate case is entitled D.B.U., et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 25-1164, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees D.B.U., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lee P. Gelernt, Esq. Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2616 - and – Tamara F. Goodlette, Esq. Laura Lunn, Esq. Monique Sherman, Esq. ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK 7301 Federal Boulevard, Suite 300 Westminster, CO 80030 Telephone: (303) 589-6401 (720) 370-9100 (720) 566-4180 - and – Anna I. Kurtz, Esq. Timothy Macdonald, Esq. Emma K. Mclean-Riggs, Esq. Sara R. Neel, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Kevin T. Traskos, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 1801 California Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 454-0100 - and – Michael Velchik, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Unaccompanied Children Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S., et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405-UNA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) consisting of: "All unaccompanied children who are or will be in the custody of HHS and who (a) have or had a potential sponsor who has been identified; and (b) have not been released to a sponsor in whole or in part because they are missing documents newly required on or after March 7, 2025." On May 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel provided Alex Haas, Diane Kelleher, and John Griffiths, the Directors of the Federal Programs Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, with a copy of the Plaintiffs' Complaint which contains the Plaintiffs' class action allegations. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs' counsel asked to confer regarding this class certification motion. However, counsel for the Plaintiffs have not yet been informed of the Defendants' position on this motion. United States Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the US federal government created to protect the health of the US people. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGkCQY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Hinojosa, Esq. Rebecca Wolozin, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 818 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 425 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 868-4792 E-mail: dhinojosa@youthlaw.org bwolozin@youthlaw.org - and - Neha Desai, Esq. Mishan Wroe, Esq. Diane de Gramont, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 1212 Broadway, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 835-8098 E-mail: ndesai@youthlaw.org mwroe@youthlaw.org ddegramont@youthlaw.org - and - Cynthia Liao, Esq. Joel McElvain, Esq. Skye L. Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: cliao@democracyforward.org jmcelvain@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org W.W. GRAINGER: Gardner-Keegan Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adrianne Gardner-Keegan, Scott A. Norman, and Alison Dela Riva, individually, and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the W.W. Grainger, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF W.W. GRAINGER, INC., and W.W. GRAINGER, INC., PROFIT SHARING INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:25-cv-5233 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2025), is brought for the Defendants violation the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") due to breach of fiduciary duties. 401(k) defined contribution plans such as the WWG Plan have become America's primary retirement savings vehicle. As with all defined contribution retirement plans that require participants to bear the costs of plan administration, the Plan participants' retirement savings suffer when the Plan fiduciaries mismanage plan assets, when employers use Plan assets for their own benefit, or pay excessive plan recordkeeping and administrative ("RKA") fees. The Defendants W.W. Grainger, Inc. ("WWG"), the Board of Directors of W.W. Grainger, Inc., and W.W. Grainger, Inc. Profit Sharing Investment Committee ("Plan Committee") (collectively, "Defendants"), utilized the Plan's forfeitures, a type of plan asset to benefit themselves by reducing their future employer contributions to the Plan, violating ERISA's fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as the fiduciary and party-in-interest prohibited transaction rules. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: improperly utilized forfeited Plan assets to disloyally reduce future employer contributions for their own selfish interests; did not engage in a prudent process when deciding to use Plan forfeitures for the employer's own benefit rather than to reduce Plan expenses; failed to followed the Plan document by prioritizing paying Plan administrative expenses; failed to monitor those responsible on the Plan Committee for allocation of Plan forfeitures; engaged in party-in-interest fiduciary prohibited transactions by enriching themselves through Plan forfeitures; and engaged in fiduciary prohibited transactions by favoring their own accounts with Plan forfeitures, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the WWG Plan. W.W. Grainger, Inc. is an American Fortune 500 industrial supply company that serves more than 4.5 million customers worldwide with products such as motors, lighting, material handling, fasteners, plumbing, tools, and safety supplies, along with inventory management services and technical support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 125 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (414) 828-2372 Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com WORLD MARKET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HARVEY, v. WORLD MARKET, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01242-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order denying World Market's motion to dismiss. Because Harvey has plausibly alleged that she lost "money or property" under the UCL and FAL's test, she has satisfied the CLRA's "any damage" standard. Valerie Harvey sues World Market, LLC and Cost Plus World Market, LLC, alleging that World Market engaged in a deceptive advertising practice commonly referred to as "drip pricing" by not including certain fees in its listing prices. Harvey brings claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated California consumers under three California consumer protection statutes: (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) the Unfair Competition Law, and (3) the False Advertising Law. World Market moves to dismiss Harvey's claims . Harvey alleges that she purchased a set of armchairs from World Market in September 2024. She alleges that World Market advertised the chairs on its website as costing $429.99 but that, after she placed the chairs in her digital shopping cart, World Market added two charges that increased the product's total price: an "Oversized Item Surcharge" for $49.95 and a "Shipping and Handling" charge for $50.00. World Market is an American chain of specialty/import retail stores, selling home furniture, decor, curtains, and rugs. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W0qa1m at no extra charge.[CC] YALE NEW HAVEN: Fails to Protect Health Info, Snitkoff Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ADAM SNITKOFF, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00736 (D. Conn., May 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. On March 8, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized third party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class members' PHI/PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class members' PHI/PII and financial information. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class members' PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII and financial information of Plaintiff and Class members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class members in the future, the suit says. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. is a health care provider and Connecticut corporation that provides a variety of healthcare and related services to its patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Fl. New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michele S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com ZAZZLE INC: TikTok Software Tracks Web Users' Info, Rodriguez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKA RODRIGUEZ & TANYA CANTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZAZZLE INC. d/b/a WWW.ZAZZLE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV13156 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 5, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the California's Trap and Trace Law, codified at California Penal Code. According to the complaint, TikTok's ability to spy on Americans requires the active assistance of companies like Defendant, which created an online presence at zazzle.com and encourages consumers to use the website as an alternative to personal interaction. The Defendant promises visitors that it will safeguard their personal information but the website operates as a digital "trojan horse" to help the Chinese government use TikTok to spy on visitors to the website, track their journey across the web, eavesdrop on their conversations, and bombard them with targeted advertising. The Plaintiffs visited Defendant's website during the statute of limitations period. The Defendant secretly de-anonymized Plaintiffs using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiffs' devices and helped TikTok track and eavesdrop on Plaintiffs' personal lives, says the suit. Zazzle Inc. is an entity that provides an online marketplace for selling custom designs to customers throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com ZOOMINFO TECH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEMARY LAROCK, v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05745-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order regarding class action case schedule: Event Date Deadline for filing amended pleadings: July 3, 2025 Close of fact discovery: Jan. 5, 2026 Deadline to disclose merits and class Feb. 5, 2026 certification experts: Deadline to disclose merits and class March 5, 2026 certification rebuttal experts: Close of expert discovery: March 26, 2026 Deadline to file motion for class April 27, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file brief in opposition to class May 27, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file reply in support of class June 17, 2026 Certification: ZoomInfo is an American software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals. A copy of the Court's order dated May 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=egTrr1 at no extra charge.[CC] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Colorado Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Colorado consumer protection class suit in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Clark County. On April 16, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (Clark County), alleging that ZoomInfo Technologies LLC violated the State of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PTFA) by listing cell phone numbers of Colorado residents in the Company's online directory for commercial purposes without obtaining their consent. The suit seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Privacy Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a privacy class suit in the Superior Court of Quebec. On March 17, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, and ZoomInfo Canada Corp. in the Superior Court of Quebec, alleging that the Company's collection and publication of personal information violated the Quebec Civil Code, Quebec's statute regarding the protection of personal information in the private sector (LPRPSP), and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs seek statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and legal fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Publicity Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ZoomInfo Technologies LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a publicity class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 5, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging ZoomInfo Technologies LLC's use of individuals' names in public-facing web pages violates the Washington Personality Rights Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN] ********* 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 ***