250527.mbx

250527.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 105 Headlines 1248 HOLDINGS: Completion of Document Production Due June 13 1MORE USA: Pittman Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website 301 SCRUBS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Mitchael Says 3M COMPANY: Peabody Sues Over Contaminated PPE 402 8TH AVE: Lewis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA 7TABZ RETAIL: D.O. Sues Over False and Misleading Products ADOBE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over User Data Monetizing AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ALCAZAR TRADES: Faces Arrington Class Suit Over Discrimination ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Stay Canchola Suit Pending Appeal Tossed ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to Quash Williams, Shapiro Depositions AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid AMERICAN AIRLINES: White Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes AMERICAN HEALTH: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to June 16 AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Can File Certain Portions of Docs Under Seal AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Munoz Suit Says ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Lindsey Says ANGEL GARITE: Court Sets Expedited Class Cert Briefing ANIMAL MEDICAL: Veterinary Interns Sue Over Programs' Conspiracy ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: "McFall" Remains Stayed ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Appeal from $83.5MM Class Deal Pending ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: August 28 Final Hearing on $20MM TCPA Deal ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Bid to Dismiss "Homie" Remains Pending APNAR PHARMA: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Shirish Suit ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to March 6, 2026 ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cipolla Says ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Presley Says ASHLEY STEWART: Dalton Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Enyart Securities Class Suit ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Gru Suit BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Class Suit Over Nivea's Natural Claims BIOVIE INC: Discovery in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing BLADE AIR MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Drulias Suit in Delaware BODY GLOVE: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kellerman Says BUBBLE BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Henry Says BURNS & WILCOX: Mosley Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ramirez Says CDHA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, E.W. Suit Says CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Violates FMLA & FLSA, Grim Suit Alleges CHEX SYSTEMS INC: Ross Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Settlement in Monteiro Wins Initial Nod CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Crawford Sues Over Preventable Data Breach CLEVELAND COUNTY: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 4th Circuit COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Powerade Claims COINBASE INC: Settles Crypto Sweepstakes Class Suit for $2.25-Mil. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Fluoride Rinse Unsafe for Children, Suit Says COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines CREDIT UNION: Renewed Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due July 15 DAVID CERESINI: Parkell Suit Seeks to Certify Class DERMALOGICA LLC: Lavalee Balks at "Made in the USA" Product Claims DOXO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Mundle Suit Due Dec. 11 DUN & BRADSTREET: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Clearlake ELEVANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ELYRIA, OH: May Face Class Action Over Toxic Firefighting Foams EQT CORP: Parties Seek Leave to Review Confidential Designations EQT CORPORATION: Ross Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class FIVERR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit for Withholding Extra Fees FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Hybrid Vehicles in Canada GAP INC: Williams Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit GENERAL MOTORS: Hecht Sues Over Cars' Connecting Rod Defects GEOLOGICS CORP: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Hardy Says GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit GOURMET DELI: Mongollan Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Hilbert Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit HERTZ GLOBAL: Court Stays Doller Suit Pending Dismissal Bid Ruling HLT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Metalworkers' OT Wages, Tino Says HOMELAND VINYL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reynolds Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Brake Problems IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Secure PII, Martinez Says IMMUNITYBIO INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 13 INFUSION CAPITAL: Bid for Default Judgment Extended to August 7 INSIGHT GLOBAL: Paul Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Securities Suit over Disclosures Dismissed IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Farberov Over Stock Price Drop IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit KANAWHA COUNTY BOE: Must File Class Cert Response by June 13 KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Troesch Alleges KELLY SERVICES: Barrera Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KIRBY BEAUTY: Cazares Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KT HEALTH: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KUHNS ENTERPRISES: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices LANGER JUICE: Faces Robinson Suit Over Mislabeled Juice Products LASERSHIP INC: Hunter Can Send Notice to Delivery Drivers LEMONADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Murray Says LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Dixon Wins Initial Nod LINKEDIN CORP: Intercepts Confidential Health Info, Hays Alleges LOS ANGELES, CA: Muhammad Allowed to File FAC MAK ANESTHESIA: Caldwell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Objects to Class Action in Aspen J-1 Case MARTEN TRANSPORT: Maurer Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges MELNOR INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Douglass Alleges METROPOLITAN LIFE: Bid for Class Cert in Gaudet Suit Due Nov. 20 MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Seeks to File Class Materials Under Seal MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit in UK Over Licensing Practices MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Cert Filing in Holland Due March 13, 2026 MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Settles Wheat Thins Class Action for $10MM MTM TRANSIT LLC: Casillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Bid for Reconsideration NATIONAL SENIOR BENEFIT: Ayers Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California NATURE'S BOUNTY: Whyble Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Colley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hollis Says NESTLE USA: Calangian Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Beverages NEW YORK, NY: 1600 Nelson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NEXT-GEN CRUISES: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEXTRA USA: Burns Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Conejo Wins Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification NOK ENTERPRISE: Carvajal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over $6.25 Billion Buyout Deal NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sheely Appeals Tossed Extend Time Bid to 6th Cir. OFFERPAD SOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over Merger PARTS AUTHORITY: Class of Delivery Drivers Conditionally Certified PAYPAL INC: Court Consolidates Browser Extension Suit w/ Luong PEARSOX CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges PETS BEST: Chery Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection PICTSWEET CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Santos Due Oct. 3 PIO PIO: Yallico Class Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PIZZA HUT INC: Brennan TCPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas PLANETART LLC: Cole Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Suit Alleges PROSPECT MEDICAL: Cannavo Files Class Action Suit in N.D. Texas RAM PAYMENT: Plaintiffs' Pending Class Cert. Bid Terminated RAW SUGAR: Corona Sues Over Deceptive Personal Care Products RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS: Baker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Allowed Leave to File Class Reply Under Seal RIP CURL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Talbit Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Pressure Cookers SILVERGATE BANK: Parties Must File Supplemental Settlement Brief SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Klassen Due August 8 SOUNDHOUND AI: Continues to Defend Liles Class Suit in California SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Crane Operators OT, Suit Says SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid in Lanclos Due July 10 SPORN COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Tossed STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Mora Suit Gets Initial Nod TASKUS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Blackstone TESORO REFINING: Class Settlement in McGhee Suit Gets Initial Nod TIKTOK INC: Appointment of Interim Lead Class Counsel Sought TJX COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Spy Pixel Privacy Class Action Suit UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks to Certify Classes of Employees UNITED STATES: Appeals Stay of Agency Action Order to 9th Circuit VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, White Alleges VISION PATH: Africa Allowed to File 4th Amended Complaint WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Abarca WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Smith Suit WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Vester Suit WESTERN AVENUE: Burress Sues Over Credit Card Misrepresentations YALE NEW: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ortiz Suit Says YVES SAINT LAURENT: Class Settlement in Sabzerou Gets Initial Nod ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ********* 1248 HOLDINGS: Completion of Document Production Due June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tobler, et al., v. 1248 Holdings, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02068 (D. Kan., Filed Feb. 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order granting in part and denying in part American Century Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Certain Deadlines. -- The deadline for all parties to complete all document production for class certification remains on June 13, 2025. -- The deadline to complete all depositions for class certification, thereby closing the current phase of discovery, is extended up to and including July 7, 2025. -- It is the Court's expectation all Defendants will fully comply with the May 15, 2025, deadline for production set in its April 21, 2025, Order. -- The deadline for any motions to amend will remain set for July 25, 2025. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. 1248 Holdings is a family-owned private investment company.[CC] 1MORE USA: Pittman Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. 1More USA, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05357 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, and operate its website, Usa.1more.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their non-disabled customers through Usa.1more.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Versedskin.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Offspring Beauty. Yet, Usa.1more.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, 1More USA excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law 301 SCRUBS: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Mitchael Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Mitchael, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 301 Scrubs Investors, LLC d/b/ Scrubs & Beyond, LLC d/b/a Kindthread, Case No. 2:25-cv-01667-ESW (D. Ariz., May 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on May 1, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise 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. On June 7, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT Network. In response, Defendant engaged third-party forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. As a result of the 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 suit. The Defendant is a healthcare solutions provider specializing in employee benefits and wellness programs for organizations across various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Telephone: (602) 730-7100 Facsimile: (602) 794-6956 E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Peabody Sues Over Contaminated PPE ---------------------------------------------- City Of Peabody, Massachusetts, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); EIDP, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; ELEVATE TEXTILES, INC.; GENTEX CORPORATION; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; FIRE DEX GW, LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INTERTECH GROUP, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MORNING PRIDE MANUFACTURING L.L.C.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and TENCATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-02083 (D. Minn., May 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants who collectively manufactured, put in the stream of commerce, distributed, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff and Class members PPE treated and contaminated with PFAS chemicals. In order to allow their firefighting personnel to safely and efficiently perform their duties, Plaintiff and Class members engaged in trade or commerce through purchasing certain clothing or wearable items marketed to be worn by firefighting personnel in their line of duty. The firefighter equipment marketed and ultimately purchased by Plaintiff and Class members was represented to be in compliance with certain industry standards for such clothing and wearable items, including the standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The clothing and wearable items purchased by Plaintiff and Class members includes but is not limited to, jackets, pants, footwear, gloves, hoods, helmets, and respiratory equipment. This firefighting clothing and these wearable items are commonly referred to in the marketplace as “firefighting personal protective equipment” (“PPE”) or “firefighting personal protective turnout gear” (“Turnout Gear”). Unfortunately, the PPE that was manufactured, put in the stream of commerce, distributed, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff and Class members by Defendants was treated or contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS are highly toxic chemicals, and known immunotoxic agents and carcinogenic compounds that posed and continue to pose a substantial risk of injury to the health and safety of the firefighters and others exposed to the chemicals through Turnout Gear use, cleaning, and storage. The Defendants have collectively engaged in the conduct of trade and commerce in order to manufacture, distribute, market, offer for sale, and sell firefighter PPE to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Class members. The Defendants are collectively responsible for the manufacture, distribution, marketing, offering for sale and the sale of firefighting PPE that was manufactured and/or contaminated with and contain PFAS chemicals and compounds. Despite their knowledge, Defendants concealed what they knew and affirmatively misrepresented the risk of injury to potential purchasers and users of the goods, such as Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, offered for sale, and sold the goods to Plaintiff and Class members without adequate disclosure or warnings, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, City of Peabody, is a Massachusetts municipality that has a fire department. 3M Company, formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is a Delaware corporation that does business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Lydia E. Lockwood, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com llockwood@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Robert M. Foote, Esq. Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. Bret K. Pufahl, Esq. FOOTE CHAVEZ LAW, LLC 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101 Geneva, IL 60134 Phone: 630.232.7450 Email: kcc@fmcolaw.com rmf@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com bkp@fmcolaw.com 402 8TH AVE: Lewis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINGO LEWIS v. 402 8TH AVE RESTAURANT INC. (DBA MOLLYWEE) and ANGELA REILLY, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-04086 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) is a class action suit on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including amendments under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and the related provisions of Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The complaint seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff, a former employee of the Defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff was hired directly by Defendant ANGELA REILLY, who set his work schedule and consistently gave him daily orders and instructions regarding his duties. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a cook. Defendant Angela Reilly determined and controlled his work schedule, including working hours and days. The Defendant operates restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. www.StillmanLegalPC.com 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 7TABZ RETAIL: D.O. Sues Over False and Misleading Products ---------------------------------------------------------- D.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7TABZ RETAIL, LLC, doing business as 7TABZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-04306 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2025), is brought for its false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its 7-Hydroxymitragynine (“7-OH”) tablet and shot products (collectively, the “7-OH Products,” the “Products,” the “7-OH Tablets,” the “Tablets,” or the “Shots”), in violation of: California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code (the “UCL”); California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”); California’s False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code (the “FAL”); breach of implied warranty; unjust enrichment; and fraud by omission. 7-OH is an alkaloid (psychoactive chemical) found in the kratom plant (mitragyna speciosa). Kratom is both a plant and a drug. The plant originates from Southeast Asia where its leaves have long been ingested to produce stimulant and opiate-like effects. Defendant does not sell raw kratom. Defendant’s Products are pure 7-Hydroxymitragynine. This makes Defendant’s 7-OH Tablets and Shots more addictive than kratom, and the withdrawal symptoms significantly worse. The general public is largely unaware of kratom and its addictive potential. So, when it comes to “7-Hydroxymitragynine,” a derivative of kratom with a torturously complex name, the public is even less aware of it and its negative effects. When reasonable consumers think of opioids, they think of heroin, fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone, or morphine—they do not think of 7 OH Products or expect the “kratom alkaloid” product sold at their local gas stations or corner stores to act like an opioid or have the same addiction and dependency risks as opioids. 7-OH is extremely addictive and, as a result, tens of thousands of unsuspecting consumers have developed 7-OH dependencies that have caused them serious physical, psychological, and financial harm. The Defendant has intentionally failed to disclose these material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH consumption anywhere on its 7-OH Products’ labeling, packaging, or marketing material. As a result, Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws. The Defendant relies on its Products’ vague packaging and consumers’ limited knowledge of 7-Hydroxymytragynine to get unsuspecting people addicted to its Products and reap substantial profits from these addictions. Defendant relies on this ignorance and does almost nothing to correct it. Such activity is outrageous and is contrary to California law and public policy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited a local smoke shop, where an employee recommended Defendant’s 7Tabz Products. 7Tabz Retail, LLC., d/b/a 7TABZ, is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Defendant owns and operates the website www.pop7tabz.com, and also advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its 7-OH Products in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Ste. 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 619-762-1910 Fax: 858-313-1850 Email: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com ADOBE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over User Data Monetizing --------------------------------------------------------------- A new class action lawsuit accuses Adobe Inc. of secretly tracking the online activity of users and selling their data for profit. Plaintiff Nicholas Rapak's class action lawsuit claims Adobe has been "secretly harvesting and monetizing directly identifiable user data" from millions of U.S. residents without their knowledge and consent. Rapak argues Adobe has tracked users on the internet for years despite the fact that "several companies" have begun to move away from user-based online tracking due to privacy concerns. "While other companies moved away from privacy-invasive tracking technology, Adobe sought to capitalize on this shift by building a workaround that would track users regardless of browser, device, or settings," the Adobe class action says. Rapak wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who had their communications with third parties intercepted or used by Adobe without their consent. Adobe tracks users through Experience Cloud Identity Service, class action says Rapak argues Adobe tracks users through its Experience Cloud Identity Service, which he argues assigns a unique, persistent identifier to each website visitor. "Plaintiff and Class Members had no knowledge that Adobe was using unique, persistent identifiers to track them and their private communications across the internet, or that it was using this data to facilitate targeted advertising," the Adobe class action says. Rapak claims Adobe is guilty of invasion of privacy, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act and its Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory, actual, compensatory, punitive, nominal and other damages for himself and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Beyond Meat last month over claims the company unlawfully collected and sold website visitors' personal information without their consent. The plaintiff is represented by Robert C. Schubert, Willem F. Jonckheer and Amber L. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP; and Christian Levis, Amanda Fiorilla, Rachel Kesten and Yuanchen Lu of Lowey Dannenberg P.C. The Adobe class action lawsuit is Rapak, et al. v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03032, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A&O Shearman, writing for JDSupra, reports that On May 5, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed class action asserting claims against a biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain of its officers (the "Individual Defendants") under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5. Klobus v. Akero Therapeutics, Inc., No. 4:24-cv-02534-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations regarding the population of clinical trials for a drug the Company was developing to treat nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"). The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter. The Plaintiffs alleged that defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's clinical trial enrolled only patients with biopsy-confirmed, NASH-induced cirrhosis, when, in fact, approximately 20% of participants allegedly were patients with a more severe and distinct type of cirrhosis called "cryptogenic cirrhosis." Plaintiffs claimed that these alleged misstatements were material because the inclusion of other patients was contrary to Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") guidance and relevant medical literature, and because investors would be less likely to purchase the Company's stock if they knew that the Company's trials included participants with cryptogenic cirrhosis. The Court first found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that the supposed misstatements left the impression that the trial participants had a confirmed diagnosis of NASH-induced cirrhosis and thus that participants with cirrhosis of different origins would be excluded. Although the Court did dismiss some of the alleged misstatements as inactionable opinions, the Court rejected defendants' categorical argument that any statements about NASH diagnoses were statements of opinion involving "judgment calls" based on "subjective and uncertain assessments of clinical data." The involvement of judgment in a diagnosis, according to the Court, did not transform every diagnostic statement into an opinion, "especially where the speaker expresses certainty about the diagnosis." Cases the Court described as addressing statements about how companies "felt about clinical data" were held to be distinguishable. Although the Court also found that the complaint adequately pleaded loss causation, it held that plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. The complaint claimed that defendants made misleading statements so that the Company could raise the funds needed to complete the trials for the drug, which was the Company's sole asset. But the Court noted that an inference of scienter nevertheless was not warranted because defendants "always knew they would ultimately have to report [the trial] results in a detailed enough fashion to include the trial design" -- and defendants did, in fact, disclose the inclusion of patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis 36 weeks into the 96-week trial. The Court was further persuaded by defendants' argument that FDA filings "often . . . contain a lot more detail that is not disclosed to the general public and certainly not disclosed at the beginning of the announcement of a study," concluding that plaintiffs' theory that defendants acted with scienter to conceal the nature of the study was no more compelling than the opposing inference that defendants planned to disclose additional details about participants later on. The Court also noted the lack of confidential witness allegations. Having found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter, the Court dismissed the derivative control person claims against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a). The Court granted plaintiffs leave to further amend their complaint. [GN] ALCAZAR TRADES: Faces Arrington Class Suit Over Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- LAROYCE WYLSAN ARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALCAZAR TRADES, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. (May 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to prevent discrimination or harassment. Despite his distinguished record of service, the Defendant saw fit -- within a mere two days -- to strip Plaintiff of his supervisory duties. On March 28, 2024, in a fashion smacking of injustice and subterfuge, Project Manager Mike summoned Plaintiff to a basement office and unceremoniously demoted him from Supervisor to a regular custodial worker. Accordingly, when pressed for an explanation, the Defendant offered only the threadbare excuse that they "didn't need four supervisors." The Plaintiff discovered soon thereafter that two VA supervisors had recommended precisely which employees the Defendant ought to demote or terminate, effectively handing the sword used to cut down his rightful supervisory status. Adding insult to injury, the demotion occurred amid a swirl of racial animus. A supervisor, Manny Santos, hurled demeaning remarks at Plaintiff in a campaign of offensive ridicule. Santos cavalierly addressed Plaintiff as "gal" -- a contemptuous sobriquet widely understood to be a racially coded slur intended to denigrate a black woman -- and further stoked the flames by declaring there were "too many blacks in the hospital," and extolling the notion of "white privilege." The Plaintiff was Defendants' employee from March 26, 2024, to August 28, 2024. Originally, the Plaintiff was employed in a supervisory role at Hamhead, LLC. However, in March 2024, Defendant assumed control of a custodial services contract at Tabor-Ruben Medical Center (VA Hospital) in Long Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented Manny M. Starr, Esq. Michael D. Rachmann, Esq. Daniel V. Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER eservice@frontierlawcenter.com 23901 Calabasas Road, Ste No. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com mike@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Stay Canchola Suit Pending Appeal Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasibel Canchola et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order: -- denying the Defendant's motion for review of Magistrate Judge's order, and -- denying the Defendant's motion to stay case pending Rule 23(f) appeal. Accordingly, the hearing set for May 15, 2025, is vacated and off calendar. The court lifts the stay imposed by the court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's ex parte application. In summary, on balance, the court finds the relevant factors weigh in favor of denying the Motion to Stay. Because Defendant fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, the court denies the motion to stay. The Plaintiffs allege claims against the Defendants for violation of California Labor Code section 2802. Allstate sells insurance in California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtMGLe at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to Quash Williams, Shapiro Depositions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, CARLOS OCHOA, ROBERT SOUZA, and RICHARD CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on June 4, 2025, will move the Court for a protective order to quash the depositions of Terrance Williams and Glenn Shapiro and to amend Docket No. 132. Allstate's Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3, which took place on March 10 and 12, and April 15, 2025. The parties met and conferred telephonically and by written correspondence on the issues raised in Allstate's motion, as defense counsel and the Plaintiffs' counsel are located in different counties. Counsel for the Plaintiffs indicated that they oppose the Motion. Allstate is an American insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKETuL at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Neal Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq. Katherine I. Heise, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com blian@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com - and - Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Robert S. Blumberg, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., NASHVILLE WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, and MID-SOUTH WIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to extend briefing deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties request an extension of the deadline for Defendants to file their respective Responses to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification through and including June 27, 2025, and an extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to file her optional Reply through and including July 11, 2025, with all other deadlines to be extended accordingly. Ambassador is a staffing and human resources company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8FqXJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Curt M. Masker, Esq. RICKARD MASKER, PLC 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 200-8289 Facsimile: (615) 821-0632 E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com curt@maskerfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason M. Pannu, Esq. Emily M. Walker, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP Roundabout Plaza 1600 Division Street, Suite 590 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 208-5890 E-mail: jason.pannu@fmglaw.com emily.walker@fmglaw.com - and - C. Jason Willcox, Esq. MOORE CLARKE DuVALL & RODGERS, P.C Post Office Drawer 71727 Albany, GA 31708-1727 Telephone: (229) 888-3338 E-mail: jwillcox@mcdr-law.com - and - Daniel Crowell, Esq. BARTON LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2911 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 340-6790 E-mail: dcrowell@bartonesq.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: White Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTRISE WHITE, BERCLINE MILCENT, MONIQUE SPRINGER, GIRAM SANCHEZ, DANIELLE PARIS, and JORGE LEZCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify a class and appoint their counsel as class counsel. Accordingly, the Court should certify the following classes to provide relief to the thousands of American employees who were harmed by American’s refusal to comply with these important civil rights laws: Class One (Rule 23(b)(2)): "current employees and former employees of American who: (1) have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1); (2) are qualified under the ADA; and (3) are subject to American Airlines' illegal policies regarding reasonable accommodations." Class Two (Rule 23(b)(3) class: "current employees and former employees of American Airlines who: (1) have disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1); (2) are qualified under the ADA; and (3) have been adversely affected by American Airlines' ADA violating policies and procedures. If the class certification is denied, Plaintiffs request the Court to provide notice to putative class members of the right to file claims have been tolled by the pending suit for a class action, the suit says. American provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CQiqQd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian P. Sanford, Esq. Elizabeth "BB" Sanford, Esq. Yusuf Buttar, Esq. THE SANFORD FIRM 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 15400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 717-6653 Facsimile: (214) 919-0113 E-mail: bsanford@sanfordfirm.com esanford@sanfordfirm.com ybuttar@sanfordfirm.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com AMERICAN HEALTH: Court Extends Class Cert Bid Filing to June 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARINATWE v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline for class certification. -- The Plaintiff shall have until June 16, 2025, to submit his Motion, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides of clinical laboratory services.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Clark Can File Certain Portions of Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application for leave to file under seal certain portions of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification related motions and briefs, and exhibits in support thereof. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gysy7w at no extra charge.[CC] AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL, INC. The case is styled as Jose A. Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL, INC., Case No. 25STCV14056 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AMPAM Parks Mechanical -- https://ampam.com/ -- specializes in multifamily residential construction.[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 ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Munoz Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- YAN MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05306 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on April 30, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the 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 Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On Oct. 23, 2024, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT Network. In response, the Defendant engaged third-party forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation confirmed an unauthorized individual accessed data within its IT Network. Accordingly, the Defendant's investigation determined that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included: name and Social Security number. On April 30, 2025, the Defendant made a public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The 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, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. Andy Frain is a company that provides security and event staffing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Lindsey Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SHARITA LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05274 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information which, as a result, has been wrongfully disclosed to criminal cyberthieves. According to the complaint, hacker's targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems through and stole the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, stored confidential PII, including their names and Social Security numbers causing widespread injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant cannot perform its operations or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and retains it for many years, at least, even after the customer relationship has ended, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. The Defendant provides integrated solutions to security and events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com ANGEL GARITE: Court Sets Expedited Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.A.P.S., on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Angel Garite, Mary De-Anda-Ybarra, Donald J. Trump, Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Todd Lyons, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Marco Rubio, U.S. Dept. of State, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Dept. of Defense, Miguel Vergara, Bret Bradford, Bobby Thompson, Charlotte Collins, Rose Thompson, and Murray Agnew, Case No. 3:25-cv-00171-DB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Briones entered an order setting expedited briefing schedule for motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B9llwi at no extra charge.[CC] ANIMAL MEDICAL: Veterinary Interns Sue Over Programs' Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Won and Malinda Larkin of AVMA reports that a federal antitrust lawsuit brought initially by two former veterinary interns alleges conspiracy among a professional association, veterinary schools, and animal hospitals to suppress wages and competition for veterinary interns and residents, court documents show. Riley Amore and Caroline Parker alleged the defendants "collectively designed and agreed to participate in a scheme that intentionally suppresses competition by forcing all such individuals to apply for employment through a system called the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program" (VIRMP). That's according to a proposed class action suit filed April 2 in the U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia. Those named as defendants in the suit are the American Association of Veterinary Clinicians (AAVC), which sponsors the annual VIRMP; Animal Medical Center in New York City; BluePearl Operations; MedVet Associates; Pathway Vet Alliance; Red Bank Veterinary Hospital; Solution Innovations; Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine; the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine (PennVet); and VCA Animal Hospitals. The complaint is being brought on behalf of all U.S. citizens who were veterinary interns or residents any time between April 2, 2021, and the date of class certification who obtained their position through the VIRMP. The estimated number of eligible plaintiffs is 5,000; these individuals may be notified of the case by email or mail. Match program The VIRMP is meant to facilitate the selection of interns and residents across the country, similar to the National Resident Matching Program for human medical doctors. This process begins annually in September when the training program coordinators from individual residency and internship training programs, either at academic institutions or private practices, enter their program information into the matching program's website. Program coordinators then review the applications and rank the applicants. Proprietary software used by the VIRMP determines the best matches based on the rankings and notifies the applicants and the program coordinators, according to the VIRMP website. The number of positions offered in the United States through the VIRMP for the 2024-25 training year was 2,043 - 1,522 internships and 521 residencies. In total, 917 programs participated in the match. Among the 517 internship programs, 183 were offered at institutions and 334 at private practices. Among the 400 residency programs, 330 were offered at institutions and 70 at private practices. Fewer than 350 veterinary internship positions and 125 veterinary residency positions were available outside the VIRMP from 2021-25, according to the compliant. That means 70%-75% of all veterinary internships and residencies in the U.S. were offered through the match. Specifically, the plaintiffs take issue with the following program rules: -- Requiring applicants to accept employment with the program where they are matched. -- Not allowing applicants to negotiate or accept a position with a program participating in the VIRMP or a similar program at the same institution or private practice before the release of the match results. -- Prohibiting employers from making commitments or contracts with applicants prior to the notification of the selections made through the VIRMP. -- Prohibiting employers from pursuing or offering employment to an applicant who was matched elsewhere by the VIRMP unless that applicant has a written release from the institution or private practice to which they were matched. -- Requiring participating employers to offer all veterinary and residency positions available through the VIRMP. -- Requiring employers and applicants to adhere to a standardized and uniform application and hiring schedule. -- Prohibiting veterinary interns and residents from transferring between programs participating in the VIRMP. -- Imposing penalties on applicants and employers who breach the terms of their agreement outlined in the VIRMP's terms of service. Intern salaries The lawsuit also accuses employers and institutions participating in the VIRMP of sharing salary and benefit information and, as a result, standardizing and artificially suppressing wages and benefits for veterinary interns and residents. Internship stipends in 2024 averaged $56,705 among respondents—well below the mean starting salary of $106,963 for all 2024 veterinary graduates who secured full-time employment, according to data from the 2025 AVMA Report on the Economic State of the Veterinary Profession. "For most graduates with federal student loan debt, interest will continue to accrue while they pursue this education. In deciding whether to choose an internship, it is important to weigh the value of the experience an internship brings against the cost, especially for those with high debt," the report states. The proposed class action suit against AAVC, veterinary schools, and animal hospitals cites the AVMA's 2025 Economic State of the Veterinary Profession, which shows the average compensation of new graduates between 2001 and 2024. In another survey, this one by the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), the average salary was $39,354 in 2023 for all interns in training programs in the U.S. "Interns are offered salaries less than half the national average earned by new graduates; however, there is a notable range of salaries within those offered. Finally, salaries are influenced by numerous things including location, practice area, and whether the position is offered by an academic institution or a private practice," according to the conclusion of the AAVMC report, "2024 Academic Internship Salaries Offered through the VIRMP." Amore, of Vinton, Virginia, worked as a veterinary intern at the Dallas Veterinary Surgical Center from July 2020 to July 2021, earning an annual salary of $30,000, according to the complaint. Parker, of Mason, Ohio, was a veterinary intern at Texas Equine Hospital from July 2021 to July 2022, earning an annual salary of about $50,000. Advanced education benefits Proponents of the VIRMP have argued that residencies and internships are different from other types of employment, and that veterinary colleges offer many nonsalary benefits, such as free tuition and experienced mentorship, often resulting in a master's degree or PhD for applicants who complete a residency. Well-structured internships and residencies involve mentorship, formal classroom training, and travel for participating in scientific meetings, which is why these positions traditionally have been at the lower end of the pay scale, said Dr. Andrew Maccabe, former AAVMC CEO, in a previous JAVMA News article. Responding to the anticompetitive allegations, lawyer Andrew Connors of Darkhorse Law representing AAVC told AVMA News: "Nothing could be further from the truth." "As Congress has specifically recognized, matching programs like the VIRMP are pro-competitive, serving the interests of both graduates and internship/residency programs by removing the pressure and chaotic nature that would exist absent this program," Connors said, adding it is similar to the National Resident Matching Program for human doctors. "We are confident the court will agree, and we intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit." Representatives for Mars, which owns VCA and BluePearl, and UPenn and Tufts veterinary schools, declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Patrick McGahan, partner at Scott and Scott, which is jointly representing both plaintiffs, told AVMA News, "It's important that veterinary graduates have access to fair and open competition for their labor and skills. We look forward to working on this important case with our co-counsel, Hedin LLP." The suit demands a jury trial, but class action lawsuits rarely go to trial. Most cases are decided at the class certification stage, according to the International Association of Defense Counsel. If a class is not certified, the case ends or can be appealed. If a class is certified, typically a settlement is reached. [GN] ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: "McFall" Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------- In the putative class action styled McFall v. Canadian Real Estate Association, et al., Federal Court, Canada, Court File No. T-119-24, filed on January 18, 2024, plaintiff alleges that Coldwell Banker Canada, amongst other brokers, franchisors, Regional Real Estate Boards and the Canadian Real Estate Board conspired to fix the price of buyer brokerage services in violation of civil and criminal statutes. On March 14, 2024, the Court entered an order functionally staying the matter pending further order of the court. The Company believes the court will reexamine this order upon conclusion of the appeal in a previously filed matter involving similar allegations but different parties, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Appeal from $83.5MM Class Deal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Anywhere Real Estate Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that appeals from the $85 million settlement in the buyer-broker class suits remain pending. The three cases below are class actions covering sellers of homes utilizing a broker during the class period that challenge residential real estate industry rules and practices that require an offer of compensation and payment of buyer-broker commissions and certain alleged associated practices: * Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri) (formerly captioned as Sitzer); * Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Ramey, Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois); and * Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). In October 2023, the Company agreed to a settlement, on a nationwide basis, of all claims asserted or that could have been asserted against Anywhere in the Burnett, Moehrl and Nosalek cases, including claims asserted on behalf of home sellers in similar matters (the "Anywhere Settlement") and the court granted final approval of the Anywhere Settlement on May 9, 2024. The final approval has been appealed by several parties, including a plaintiff class member from the Batton buy-side case, specifically claiming that the release in the Anywhere Settlement should not release any buy-side claims that sellers may also have. The Anywhere Settlement releases the Company, all subsidiaries, brands, affiliated agents, and franchisees from all claims that were or could have been asserted by all persons who sold a home that was listed on a multiple listing service anywhere in the United States where a commission was paid to any brokerage in connection with the sale of the home in the relevant class period. The Anywhere Settlement is not an admission of liability, nor does it concede or validate any of the claims asserted against Anywhere. Under the terms of the nationwide Anywhere Settlement, Anywhere has agreed to injunctive relief as well as monetary relief of $83.5 million, of which $30 million has been paid and the remaining $53.5 million will be due within 21 business days after all appellate rights are exhausted, the timing of which is uncertain. The Company currently expects the payment to occur in 2025. The Anywhere Settlement includes injunctive relief for a period of five years, requiring practice changes in the Company-owned brokerage operations and that the Company recommend and encourage these same practice changes to its independently owned and operated franchise network. The injunctive relief, includes but is not limited to, reminding Company-owned brokerages, franchisees and their respective agents that Anywhere has no rule requiring offers of compensation to buyer brokers; prohibiting Company-owned brokerages (and recommending to franchisees) and agents from using technology (or manually) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; eliminating any minimum client commission for Company-owned brokerages; and refraining from adopting any requirement that Company-owned brokerages, franchisees or their respective agents belong to the National Association of Realtors ("NAR") or follow NAR's Code of Ethics or MLS handbook. The practice changes are to take place no later than six months after the Anywhere Settlement receives final court approval and all appellate rights are exhausted. In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, NAR, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, about a third of which name Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Anywhere Settlement. Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) was filed on January 25, 2021 ("Batton", formerly captioned as Leeder), in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl, Burnett and Nosalek matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers), and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The Company's motion to dismiss has been denied. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. In addition to these substantial defenses, the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement has limited the size of the Batton case because the settling plaintiffs are releasing claims of the type alleged in Batton. As noted above, the named plaintiffs in the Batton case have filed an appeal of the final approval of the Anywhere Settlement, objecting to the release of buy-side claims in that settlement. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: August 28 Final Hearing on $20MM TCPA Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action styled Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division), filed on June 11, 2019, plaintiffs allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC and others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or Prerecorded Message class. In January 2025, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., entered into a settlement of the case pursuant to which it will pay $20 million ($19 million remaining), subject to final approval by the court. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 10, 2025, subject to the terms and conditions of the court's order. The final approval hearing for the settlement has been set for August 28, 2025, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ANYWHERE REAL ESTATE: Bid to Dismiss "Homie" Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ On August 22, 2024, Homie Technology filed a complaint against National Association of Realtors, Anywhere Real Estate Inc., several other real estate brokerages and franchisors and MLS Property Information Network, Inc., seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants had conspired to exclude Homie and other new market entrants from the market for real estate brokerage services. The case is Homie Technology v. National Association of Realtors, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Utah). The alleged conspiracy includes creating a market structure that facilitates boycotts of new entrants, including through the implementation and enforcement of NAR rules governing the operation of MLSs, which Homie claims to be exclusionary. Homie asserts violations of federal and state antitrust laws along with a common law claim of economic harm. The Company's motion to dismiss was heard by the court on February 20, 2025, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. APNAR PHARMA: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Shirish Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE SHIRISH AND RANJAN TRIVEDI LIVING TRUST, et al., v. APNAR PHARMA LP, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00522-SSS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered order setting scheduling conference as follows: The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed at least fourteen (14) days before the Scheduling Conference. Counsel are ordered to deliver to their clients a copy of this Order and of the Court's Scheduling Order, which will contain the schedule the Court sets at the Scheduling Conference. Apnar is a privately owned, rapidly growing pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Haqt8 at no extra charge.[CC] ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to March 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE FERNANDEZ; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07711-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order continuing class certification hearing and briefing schedule: 1) That the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and all associated hearings and deadlines be continued by 6 months. 2) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a class certification motion be March 6, 2026. 3) The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion be April 27, 2026. 4) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply be May 11, 2026. 5) The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be calendared for May 26, 2026 at 10:00am or as soon thereafter as the Court may hear the matter. No further continuances will be granted absent a showing of extremely good cause, e.g., documentation of a settlement of the action. Aramark is a provider of rental uniforms and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IiUdI4 at no extra charge.[CC] ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cipolla Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VINCENT CIPOLLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00654 (E.D. Mo., May 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its patients. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the 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. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was used and transmitted by the Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the suit. Ascension Health operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides physician practice management, venture capital investing, biomedical engineering, clinical care, risk management, palliative care, spiritual, and information services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Presley Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN PRESLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASCENSION HEALTH, D/B/A ASCENSION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00686-JSD (E.D. Mo., May 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of its patients, including, but not limited to: names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, race/gender, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers, insurance company names, and clinical information related to inpatient visits (service locations, physicians' names, discharge dates, and diagnosis and billing codes). While providing a health care service, the Defendant collects, creates, or shares information about health status, the provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be used to identify an individual. Medical records represent the most sensitive information available concerning a person's private affairs. These records reveal intimate and personal aspects of the human condition, such as illnesses that might carry social stigma and details about substance abuse, family planning and mental health. On Dec. 5, 2024, the Defendant learned that a former business partner experienced a cyber incident. An investigation was launched on January 21, 2025, which revealed that patient data provided to the former business partner was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff and Class Members, current and former patients of Defendant, seek relief from Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct. The Defendant is a private healthcare system with 105 wholly owned or consolidated hospitals, and 34 senior living facilities across 16 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: cmad@poulinwilley.com ASHLEY STEWART: Dalton Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashley Stewart, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-02124 (D. Minn., May 15, 2025) arises because the Defendant's Website, www.ashleystewart.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant offers plus size women's clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to tops, bottoms, dresses, jeans, swimwear, intimates, shoes, bridal gowns, and jewelry. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Enyart Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertio 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 Enyart securities class suit in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. Enyart v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et. al. In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, Case No. 2024LA00000842. On November 8, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by an alleged former Spectrum shareholder who received Assertio shares in the Spectrum Merger, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the registration statement for the Assertio shares issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. In general terms, the complaint alleges that the registration statement contained misrepresentations and omissions related to the value of adding ROLVEDON to Assertio's portfolio of products. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission or a recessionary measure of damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On February 21, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court has scheduled a hearing on that motion on June 4, 2025. On April 24, 2025, the court entered an order staying discovery until a decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN] ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Assertio 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 a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 5, 2022, the case is captioned Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) (the "New York Action"). Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The court consolidated the three New York lawsuits and entered an order designating Steven Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022. On January 23, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion to dismiss as to two specific statements. On October 25, 2024, a Spectrum stockholder (Ayoub) filed a substantially similar putative securities class action complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants on behalf of the same alleged class as the New York Action. On October 30, 2024, Christiansen and Ayoub jointly moved for class certification and for appointment as class representatives in the New York Action. On November 4, 2024, defendants moved to disqualify Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and for a stay of proceedings pending appointment of a substitute lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2024, the court entered an order staying both cases pending resolution of the defendants' motion to disqualify Mr. Christiansen as lead plaintiff, which is now fully briefed and remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN] ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Assertio 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 Shapiro securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern Distrit of Illinois. Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January 5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on Assertio's profitability (the "Shapiro class action"). On April 11, 2024, the court appointed Continental General Insurance Company as the lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 10, 2024, that names as defendants Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and Spectrum and certain of its former officers and directors. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") between March 9, 2023 and January 3, 2024, and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the proxy statement issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024; the plaintiff filed its opposition brief on October 10, 2024; and the defendants filed their reply brief on November 14, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN] AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Gru Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Axsome Therapeutics, 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 a securities class action filed on May 13, 2022 by an Evy Gru captioned "Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former officers and one director is ongoing. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions concerning the company's Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls practices, and its New Drug Application with the FDA, with respect to one of its product candidates, "AXS-07." The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On October 7, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which contains substantially similar allegations as in the initial complaint. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2022, which motion remains pending before the court. On September 25, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 13, 2023, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter seeking leave to file an amended complaint and to substitute new plaintiffs. On January 22, 2024, the district court granted that motion and ordered that the case name be changed to "In re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation." On January 26, 2024, the replacement plaintiffs renewed their request for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and, on February 6, 2024, the district court granted that request. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on February 7, 2024. On March 11, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 31, 2025, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against three of Axsome's current and former officers and allowing the claims against the company and two current officers to proceed. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing and delivering therapies for central nervous system. The company's portfolio includes three not yet approved product candidates, AXS-07, AXS-12, and AXS-14, which are being developed for multiple indications, and two approved products, Auvelity(R) and Sunosi(R), both of which are also being developed for further indications. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00674-PP (E.D. Wis., May 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.barleans.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Barleans Organic Oils LLC provides organic oil products. The Company offers flax, omega, fish, and specialty oils, as well as seeds and olive leaf products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Class Suit Over Nivea's Natural Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ THE WHAT? Beiersdorf Inc., the parent company of Nivea, is facing a proposed class action lawsuit filed in a California federal court. The suit alleges that the company misled consumers by falsely advertising certain skincare lines -- specifically Nourish by Nature and Naturally Good -- as containing a specific percentage of "natural origin" or "naturally derived" ingredients. THE DETAILS: Filed on April 25, the lawsuit claims that five plaintiffs purchased Nivea products labeled with statements such as "X% Natural Origin Ingredients," only to discover the formulas were composed largely of synthetic substances. The complaint argues that Beiersdorf used the ISO 16128 standard -- a non-regulatory, industry-developed guideline not intended for marketing purposes -- to justify its ingredient claims. The plaintiffs allege that this standard allowed the company to reclassify synthetic ingredients as "naturally derived," misleading consumers who were trying to make environmentally conscious and skin-sensitive purchases. They seek class action certification, damages, and a jury trial, and aim to represent all California consumers who bought the products between April 25, 2021, and the present. THE WHY? This legal challenge underscores a broader reckoning within the cosmetics and personal care industry over the transparency and definition of so-called "natural" claims. As consumer demand for clean and natural products grows, so too does scrutiny of how these terms are substantiated -- or manipulated -- by brands. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent for the use of voluntary standards like ISO 16128 in marketing, and may drive stricter regulation of natural-origin claims across the U.S. beauty sector. [GN] BIOVIE INC: Discovery in Consolidated Shareholder Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Biovie 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 consolidated shareholder class suit fact discovery is ongoing in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and that motion was fully briefed as of December 5, 2024. On March 27, 2025, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move into fact discovery. Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN] BLADE AIR MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Drulias Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blade Air Mobility 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 Drulias class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 16, 2024, these cases were consolidated under the caption Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of Experience Investment Corp. ("EIC" and such directors, the "EIC Directors"), the former officers of EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor"), and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against Sponsor. The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the proxy statement related to the acquisition of Old Blade insufficiently disclosed EIC's cash position, Old Blade's value prospects and risks, and information related to Old Blade's chief executive officer, who is also our current chief executive officer. The consolidated complaints seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing. The Company believes that all claims in the lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against them. Headquartered in New York, Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air transportation and logistics for hospitals and passengers. [BN] BODY GLOVE: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BODY GLOVE IP HOLDINGS LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05063 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bodyglove.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Body Glove International LLC manufactures and sells water sports apparel and accessories. The Company offers wetsuits, rashguards, bikinis, body boards, wakeboards, mobile accessories, watches, footwear, safety and sports gear, water filters, women's swimwear, men's board shorts, women's cover-ups and apparel, life jackets, sunglasses, and hats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Kellerman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTA KELLERMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL CENTER FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02709 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information of its patients which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems between July 17, 2024 and August 6, 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. Accordingly, in Sept. 3, 2024, Brunswick detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems between July 17, 2024, and August 6, 2024 (Data Breach). As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of its patients, including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their name, date of birth, medical record number, medicare/medicaid ID, treatment information, medical billing/claims information, and health insurance information. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff’s and other patients' information. The Defendant's failure to safeguard its patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, New York law, and Defendant's contracts with its patients to safeguard their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former patients of Defendant, who provided their Private Information to Defendant. Brunswick is a healthcare entity that specializes in the treatment of mental illness, with its principle place of business in Amityville, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BUBBLE BEAUTY: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Henry Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUBBLE BEAUTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05073 (S.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://hellobubble.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bubble Beauty, Inc. specializes in creating skincare formulations that are dermatologist-tested, cruelty-free, vegan, and fragrance-free. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law BURNS & WILCOX: Mosley Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MAIA MOSLEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BURNS & WILCOX, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-02717-AT (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2025) is a collective action for unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, Burns & Wilcox willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay Mosley and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek at one and a half times their regular rate of pay. Mosley seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals consisting of all individuals Defendant Burns & Wilcox employed as broker assistants, assistant underwriters, associate brokers or associate underwriters for at least one week during the three years preceding the filing of this complaint or so currently employs, and who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek. Burns & Wilcox is a "Managing General Agent" that facilitates business to business sales of insurance coverage. Burns & Wilcox contracts with insurance carriers to sell insurance policies to businesses seeking insurance coverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. Evan P. Drew, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-873-8000 E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com edrew@pcwlawfirm.com CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ramirez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-04165 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2025) alleges that Blue Shield shared Plaintiff's and the Class Members' personal identifiable information and private health information with Google Analytics and Google Ads without Plaintiff's or the Class Members' knowledge (the Data Breach). Blue Shield's Website and App allow Plaintiff and Class Members to access a digital copy of their medical ID card; pay bills including premiums using secure payment options; file insurance claims and track their status; manage their healthcare needs including scheduling telehealth appointments, accessing their health plans; and navigating resources to find urgent care facilities; compare costs, and prepare for non-emergent medical needs. Due to the nature of the Website and App, the Defendant knew its patients, like Plaintiff, would use the Website and App to communicate sensitive and personal private information in regards to their health care while utilizing Blue Shield to receive medical care and insurance, including information related to payment, insurance plan type, address, gender, family size, medical claim service dates and provider name, type, and location, among other data. Blue Shield used Google Analytics' services to internally track the website usage of its members to "improve the services" provided to its members. However, unbeknownst to its members, Google Analytics was sharing their Private Information with Google Ads without Plaintiff's or the Class Members' knowledge or approval, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the class are current or former patients of Blue Shield. In order to obtain Defendant's services, Defendant required Plaintiff and the Class Members to provide their PII, including their names, dates of birth, email addresses, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and other personal information. Defendant also required Plaintiff and the Class Member to provide their health insurance information and medical history. The Defendant created additional PHI for each Class Member and saved it to its files, including medical records, doctor information, and other medical related documents. Defendant used a third-party vendor to store, maintain, and transmit Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Private Information., Blue Shield is a health insurance company that offers health plans to approximately six million people. The Defendant owns and controls blueshieldca.com and related webpages and also owns and controls a mobile app.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com CDHA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, E.W. Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- E.W., by and through her parent and guardian ROSEANN LABRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS AND SPARK DSO, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Case No. 5:25-cv-02453-WB (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on March 14, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Accordingly, the Defendants had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on their affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On Sept. 11, 2024, the Defendants detected a suspicious activity in their It Network. Upon detection, the Defendants launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendants with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendants would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of collecting and storing the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members for its own financial benefit, Defendants had a continuous duty to adopt and employ reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff and the Class Members’ Private Information from disclosure to third parties. Chord is a dental support organization headquartered in Pennsylvania that provides support services to over 60 dental practices in six states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 201 Sevilla Ave, 2nd floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Violates FMLA & FLSA, Grim Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE GRIMM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00603-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) is a class action suit against Charter Communications alleging claims of retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law as well as alleging overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a model employee, working overtime without complaint, or proper compensation, just to serve her employer. But, when she became ill and needed FMLA leave, and then complained of wage theft and religious discrimination, her supervisor and Charter launched a relentless campaign of retaliation that now threatens to leave her without a job after more than a decade of dedicated work. Ms. Grimm has worked for Charter and its predecessor entities since 2013. The Plaintiff works in Charter's Albany office and is a resident of Schenectady, New York. Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 CHEX SYSTEMS INC: Ross Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chex Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Vestina Ross, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chex Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02664-AT-JKL (N.D. Ga., May 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. ChexSystems -- https://www.chexsystems.com/ -- is an American check verification service and consumer reporting agency owned by the eFunds subsidiary of Fidelity National Information Services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Settlement in Monteiro Wins Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADILSON MONTEIRO, KAREN GINSBURG, JASON LUTAN, and BRIAN MINSK, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Children's Hospital Corporation Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan, v. THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION, THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, and DOES NO. 1-20, Case No. 1:22-cv-10069-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court will issue a separate order generally adopting the plaintiffs' proposed order, which summarizes these findings, authorizes dissemination of the class notice, and details the schedule moving forward, including for the final approval hearing. A final approval hearing will accordingly be held on Sept. 29, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. For purposes of settlement, the plaintiffs have sufficiently satisfied the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B) to certify, as agreed by the parties, a class comprising: "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." The proposed class excludes the defendants and their beneficiaries. The "Class Period" is defined as "the period from Jan. 18, 2016, through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court." The plaintiffs initiated this ERISA action in January 2022. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to maintain prudent investments and defray the Plan's expenses. Children's is a resource and provider of specialized medical and therapeutic services customized to meet the specific needs of children. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uz4JjH at no extra charge.[CC] CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Crawford Sues Over Preventable Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Muneerah Crawford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-50217 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2025), is brought against Defendants as a result of a widespread and preventable data breach that compromised the personal and sensitive information of thousands, if not millions, of individuals across the United States. This action arises from Defendants’ failure to adequately secure and protect personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (together “Private Information”) entrusted to it by customers and employees, including names, driver’s license numbers, contact details, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport information, and Medicare/Medicaid identifiers. The data breach occurred between October and December 2024 and stemmed from Hertz's use of a vulnerable third-party file transfer system (the “Data Breach”) provided by Cleo. The vulnerability leading to the Data Breach was reportedly exploited by the Clop ransomware group and exposed massive volumes of sensitive information. Despite knowing the severity of the Data Breach, Defendants delayed public disclosure and failed to provide timely notice to affected individuals, thereby exacerbating the harm. The Defendants’ negligence in failing to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, combined with its failure to act swiftly to notify those affected, constitutes a clear violation of consumer protection laws, privacy laws, and common law duties. As a consequence of the Data Breach and ransomware attack Plaintiff and Class Members are at risk of having their identities stolen, or their PII and PHI. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face ongoing and substantial risks of identity theft, fraud, and other misuse of their private information. They seek damages and equitable relief to remedy the harms caused by Defendants’ conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received an email and a data breach notification letter in the mail on April 17, 2025, from Hertz indicating to her that her PII had been subject to the Data Breach. Cleo provides a file transfer platform used by Hertz for limited purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: 201-391-7000 Facsimile: 201-307-1086 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and – Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-889-3359 Facsimile: 954-889-5913 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com CLEVELAND COUNTY: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CLEVELAND COUNTY, a/k/a Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, North Carolina, is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Sara B. Conner, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cleveland County, a/k/a Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, North Carolina, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation and statutory penalties for the Plaintiff and all similarly situated emergency medical services technicians for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On July 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a joint motion for order approving stipulations of fact. On July 12, 2024, the Defendant and the Plaintiff filed their motions for summary judgment. On Mar. 31, 2025, Chief Judge Martin Reidinger entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's and the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's joint motion for order approving stipulations of fact is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Sara Conner v. Cleveland County, Case No. 25-1488, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee SARA B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey Michael Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 Defendant-Appellant CLEVELAND COUNTY, a/k/a Cleveland County Emergency Medical Services, North Carolina, is represented by: William Ellis Boyle, Esq. Grant B. Osborne, Esq. WARD & SMITH, PA P.O. Box 33009 Raleigh, NC 27636 Telephone: (919) 277-9100 - and - Christopher S. Edwards, Esq. WARD & SMITH, PA P.O. Box 7068 Wilmington, NC 28406 Telephone: (910) 794-4867 - and - Martha Raymond Thompson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARTHA R. THOMPSON 1137 East Marion Street Shelby, NC 28150 Telephone: (980) 477-0128 COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Powerade Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- A new class action lawsuit alleges Coca-Cola Co. falsely advertises its Powerade Mountain Berry Blast sports drink as containing 50% more electrolytes than other sports drinks. Plaintiff Natasha Lekwa filed the class action complaint against Coca-Cola on Aug. 22, 2024, in New York state court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Lekwa argues Coca-Cola falsely advertises Powerade Mountain Berry Blast as containing 50% more electrolytes than competitors, but the actual percentage is insignificant. She argues that such claims should be reflected in the sodium and potassium content in the labeling as required for food products, which is not the case, the lawsuit says. Lekwa wants to represent a New York class of consumers who purchased Powerade in the state during the applicable statute of limitations period. Powerade class action alleges Coca-Cola misleads consumers Lekwa claims Coca-Cola's representation of Powerade's electrolyte content is misleading because it implies the sports drink will deliver superior benefits compared to its competitors. The Powerade class action lawsuit argues that while Powerade does contain more sodium and potassium than some other sports drinks, the difference is not enough to provide any meaningful benefit to consumers. Lekwa claims Coca-Cola's labeling violates state and federal laws, including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits misleading labeling. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory relief and an award of monetary and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In related news, a California federal judge has partially dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against PepsiCo over claims the company misled consumers about the sugar and protein content in its Gatorade protein bars. [GN] COINBASE INC: Settles Crypto Sweepstakes Class Suit for $2.25-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that earlier this week, Coinbase and its sweepstakes administrator agreed to the terms of a class action settlement in the matter of Suski v. Coinbase, Inc. After nearly four years of litigation, including a trip to the United States Supreme Court, Plaintiffs accepted $2.25 million dollars to settle their crypto sweepstakes lawsuit. It is important for sweepstakes operators to ensure that their promotions comply with applicable state and federal regulations. As evidenced by Suski, misleading sweepstakes promotions can result in the expenditure of a great deal of time and money in responding to class action lawsuits and/or regulatory action. The "Dogecoin" Crypto Sweepstakes Lawsuit In June 2021, Coinbase made the "Dogecoin" cryptocurrency available on its platform. To increase trading volume, it hired a third party to administer a crypto sweepstakes with a top prize of $300,000. As alleged, various prompts on Coinbase's website informed users that, in order to participate, they had to buy or sell $100 worth of "Dogecoin" on the Coinbase platform. Plaintiffs entered the sweepstakes promotion and traded the cryptocurrency, as instructed, for a shot at the top prize. Only after entering the promotion, Plaintiffs claimed, did they learn that there was an alternative, free means of entry ("AMOE") available to enter the sweepstakes. A separate "rules and details" page of Coinbase's website made clear that consumers could also enter the sweepstakes by U.S. Mail without trading cryptocurrency. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, asserting that, had Coinbase properly disclosed this AMOE, they would not have paid money to enter the cryptocurrency sweepstakes. Tips for Running a Crypto Sweepstakes The Suski proceedings demonstrate just how time consuming and costly prolonged sweepstakes-related litigation can be. Before the merits of the lawsuit could even be determined, Coinbase filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Motion was denied; and three years of legal proceedings followed to determine whether the court's denial was proper. Businesses that are interested in running crypto sweepstakes promotions should employ best practices to reduce the possibility of finding themselves defending an action in a court of law. Among other measures, sweepstakes operators must exercise caution when drafting sweepstakes contest rules, as well as associated disclosure and disclaimer language. For example, sweepstakes contest rules and associated terms should always: Make clear that no purchase/payment is necessary to enter or win. Include disclosures that make clear that a purchase/payment will not increase the odds of winning. Make clear that entrants who utilize the sweepstakes AMOE have the same odds of winning as those who enter by making a purchase. Sweepstakes regulations are quite complicated and differ from state to state. As such, it is important that sweepstakes operators and their marketing teams secure the services of experienced sweepstakes attorneys prior to promotion launch. The attorneys at Klein Moynihan Turco have decades of experience in assisting businesses with assorted sweepstakes promotions. If you require assistance in this area, please email us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900. The material contained herein is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Fluoride Rinse Unsafe for Children, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH COOK, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to HELLO PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05448 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's unlawful conduct of labelling its Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse products. The label of Defendant's Wild Strawberry Rinse states it is "thoughtfully formulated with wild strawberry natural flavor and xylitol" and "tastes so delicious they'll rush to rinse." The label of the Defendant's Bubble Gum Rinse describes the candy-flavored liquid as a "unicorn splash" that "tastes magical" and "tastes like rainbows and sunshine (aka bubble gum)." In addition to showcasing its "delicious" and "magical" flavors, the Hello Rinse label boasts that the liquid does not contain harmful or unhealthy ingredients: "vegan. no alcohol. no dyes. no artificial flavors. no SLS/sulfates. no brainer." The reality is that fluoride mouthrinse is considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be too dangerous for children under 6 to use. Hello Rinse, which has the same fluoride concentration as adult rinses, is actually more dangerous for young children than adult rinses because it comes in candy and fruit flavors that entice children to use and swallow more of the product, says the suit. The Defendant manufactures and sells a fluoride mouthrinse that it specifically markets for use by kids called Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse. The Rinse comes in two kid-enticing flavors: Wild Strawberry and Bubble Gum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, KRISTIN DELLA, and JILL LIENHARD, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the order extending class certification deadlines as follows: Event Deadline New Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to Apr. 10, 2025 May 15, 2025 file the motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Defendant to oppose June 10, 2025 July 17, 2025 the motion for class certification and produce any expert report(s) in support of its opposition Mediation Deadline: July 15, 2025 Aug. 19, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Aug. 5, 2025 Sept. 9, 2025 the reply in support of motion for class certification: Deadline for Defendant to file Sept. 2, 2025 Oct. 7, 2025 any replies in support of its Daubert motion(s) and any opposition(s) to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Sept. 30, 2025 Nov. 4, 2025 any replies in support of its Daubert motion(s): Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion Nov. 19, 2025 Dec. 17, 2025 for class certification and any Daubert motion(s): Colgate-Palmolive specializes in the production, distribution, and provision of household, health care, personal care, and veterinary products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yN6K7g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com rajiv@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Kate T. Spelman, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com CREDIT UNION: Renewed Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Due July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS, and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE OMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order that the parties may have until July 15, 2025, to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval, file a motion seeking other relief, or show cause why they are unable to do either. The case is a proposed class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regarding the reasonableness of recordkeeping fees for a multiple-employer retirement plan. The court agrees with plaintiffs that it is premature to abandon the settlement process. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreement by the new deadline, each side may request whatever relief it believes is appropriate at that time. The court will deny without prejudice plaintiffs' request for a conference. The court denied the plaintiffs' first motion for class certification, but while the parties were briefing the defendants' summary judgment motion on the individual claims, the parties jointly moved for certification of a smaller class and for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement. The court denied that motion without prejudice but gave the parties an opportunity to address several concerns raised by the court. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VjLvn9 at no extra charge.[CC] DAVID CERESINI: Parkell Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donald Parkell, et al., v. Warden Ceresini, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00593-GBW (D. Del.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zP3z8p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. DERMALOGICA LLC: Lavalee Balks at "Made in the USA" Product Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN LAVALLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DERMALOGICA, LLC and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER, Case No. 8:25-cv-01013 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2025) is a class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Dermalogica concerning unlawful labeling of Defendant's cosmetic products, with the designation and representation that the products are/were made and/or manufactured in the USA without clear and adequate qualification of the foreign ingredients and components contained, as required by federal rules and California laws. Accordingly, the unlawfully represented products are sold through various channels, including, but not limited to third-party merchants operating in brick-and-mortar stores like Sephora, Nordstrom and Ulta. Dermalogica's products are labeled with the express, unqualified representation that they are "Made in the USA." This claim appears on nearly every product manufactured, sold, or distributed by the Defendant, including the products purchased by the Plaintiff. Contrary to the Defendant's express representations and its failure to clearly and adequately qualify those representations, the products purchased by Plaintiff are substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign ingredients, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff purchased several of Dermalogica's best known products: (1) Clear Start Post Breakout Fix; (2) Active Clay Cleanser (5.1 ounce); (3) Daily Glycolic Cleanser (5.1 ounce); (4) Special Cleansing Gel (1.7 ounce); (5) Intensive Moisture Balance; and (6) Special Cleansing Gel (8.4 ounce), which are labeled, marketed and sold to consumers as "Made in the USA." However, the Products are made with numerous ingredients and components, that are not grown, sourced or otherwise made in the United States. The Defendant's conduct of advertising and selling deceptively labeled products bearing the representation that such products are "Made in the USA" violates: California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen and resident of the County of Orange, State of California. Founded in 1986, Dermalogica is a skincare company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-552 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com DOXO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Mundle Suit Due Dec. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS MUNDLE and PAMELA KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. DOXO, INC., a corporation; STEVEN SHIVERS, individually and as an officer of DOXO, Inc.; and ROGER PARKS, individually and as an officer of DOXO, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00893-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Jury Trial Date: Nov. 2, 2026 Discovery on class certification Oct. 13, 2025 issues completed by: Any motions related to class Dec. 11, 2025 certification must be filed by: Deadline for joining additional parties: Feb. 3, 2026 All remaining discovery completed by: May 7, 2026 All motions related to expert witnesses June 11, 2026 (e.g., Daubert motion) must be filed by and noted on the motion calendar no later than 21 days thereafter: All motions in limine must be filed by: Sept. 17, 2026 Agreed Pretrial Order due: Oct. 16, 2026 Doxo operates as a software company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8xrkyq at no extra charge.[CC] DUN & BRADSTREET: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Clearlake ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DNB), relating to the proposed merger with Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, Dun & Bradstreet shareholders will receive $9.15 in cash for each share of common stock they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 12, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dun-bradstreet-holdings-inc-dnb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Bridge Investment Group Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BRDG), relating to the proposed merger with Apollo. Under the terms of the agreement, Bridge stockholders and Bridge OpCo unitholders will receive 0.07081 shares of Apollo stock for each share of Bridge Class A common stock and each Bridge OpCo Class A common unit, respectively. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 17, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/bridge-investment-group-holdings-inc-brdg/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- LENSAR, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNSR), relating to the proposed merger with Alcon. Under the terms of the agreement, LENSAR shareholders will receive $14.00 per share, with an additional non-tradeable contingent value right offering up to $2.75 per share in cash conditioned on the achievement of certain milestones. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lensar-inc-lnsr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Southern States Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSBK), relating to the proposed merger with FB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, Southern States' shareholders will receive 0.800 shares of FB Financial common stock for each share of Southern States stock. Visit link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/southern-states-bancshares-inc-ssbk/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Elevance Health, Inc. ("Elevance" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's current senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Elevance common stock between April 18, 2024, and October 16, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Miller v. Elevance Health, Inc., No. 25-cv-923 (S.D. Ind.). The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here. Elevance's Alleged Fraud Elevance is a healthcare company that, among other things, provides health insurance plans to a variety of markets. This includes contracting with states to administer Medicaid benefits for eligible beneficiaries. Elevance prices premiums based on the historical and expected cost to provide benefits. Among other things, the cost of providing health benefits to members is driven by the level of care a patient requires, often referred to as "acuity," and the members' utilization of the health benefits. States regularly conduct an eligibility review to "redetermine" whether Medicaid beneficiaries still qualify for coverage. In response to the COVID pandemic, the federal government temporarily disallowed states from redetermining the eligibility of Medicaid recipients. The moratorium on redetermination was lifted in 2023, and states resumed the redetermination process. Most states expected to finish the redetermination process by mid-2024. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, 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. 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." In response to this disclosure, the price of Elevance common stock declined by $32.21 per share, or 5.8%. However, Defendants continued to make false, reassuring statements to investors concerning the extent of the cost increase and how that was accounted for in the Company's full year guidance. The truth was further revealed on October 17, 2024, when 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 decline by another $52.61 per share, or 10.6%. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than July 11, 2025, which is the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana is open that is 60 days after the publication date of May 12, 2025. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott R. Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com. About BLB&G BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $40 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about the firm can be found online at www.blbglaw.com. Contacts Scott R. Foglietta Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, New York 10020 (212) 554-1903 scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com [GN] ELYRIA, OH: May Face Class Action Over Toxic Firefighting Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Owen MacMillan of The Chronicle-Telegram reports that the city of Elyria is seeking to join a class-action lawsuit against the manufacturers of firefighting foams that were common for decades before they were linked to cancer. During a meeting of City Council's Finance Committee on Monday, May 12, Law Director Amanda Deery requested Council's permission to retain Avon Lake attorney Brian Balser to represent the city in a lawsuit. The committee unanimously voted in favor of the request, which will go before Council as a whole for approval. A number of federal class action lawsuits have been filed against manufacturers of aqueous film forming foams, or AFFFs, which were used for decades by firefighters throughout the country. The foams contained perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, called PFAs, which are toxic chemicals that have since been linked to various forms of cancer, developmental disorders and immune system issues, according to the Environment Protection Agency. Elyria Fire Chief Joe Pronesti confirmed that the Elyria Fire Department used AFFFs which contained the chemicals in question for more than 50 years, only removing them from service when their negative health effects became widely known in the early 2010s. "Up until the last couple of years we utilized this foam," Pronesti said. "Until the lawsuits and the health concerns came out, nobody knew." Pronesti said the largest single use of the problematic firefighting foams at one time was at a fire in August of 2010 at United Initiators on Garden Street. During that fire, a skimming system that separated flammable chemicals from water caught fire and the department used AFFFs to snuff out the flame. "We utilized foam, applied it onto those skimming tanks to suppress the vapors and the fire," Pronesti said. "But it took hundreds and hundreds of gallons of foam to do it. That's probably in my career the most we've used and probably I would say the most we've used since we started carrying AFFF 50 (or) 60 years ago." Pronesti said that firefighting foams are used to cut off oxygen from reaching a flammable surface, such as a chemical or oil spill that has caught fire. "It creates a cover, if you will, basically a blanket and we have used it for flammable liquid spills like large gasoline spills," he said. Elyria fire still uses AFFFs, but only new formulas that do not contain the harmful PFA chemicals. Pronesti said the change began shortly after he became chief. As far as the effect of toxic foams on his firefighters, Pronesti said it is hard to pin down how many were made sick by PFAs due to the myriad other hazards firefighters face. "As far as anyone getting sick related to it, all I'll tell you is that cancer is one of the top killers of firemen around the country," Pronesti said. "It's just one more issue, it's so difficult to pinpoint. We have had many members who have had cancer and have passed from cancer, but you just don't know how many things contributed to that." It is unclear how much money Elyria could be entitled to based on its use of its use of AFFFs containing toxic chemicals. Deery's proposal to Council would pay Balser on contingency, meaning he will only be paid if the city is awarded money from the class action. Balser has represented the city in class action lawsuits in the past regarding insulin price hikes and opioid distribution. Deery said that Balser's contingency rate for the firefighting foam case has not been established, but that in the past he had been paid 24 percent of what the city was awarded. The city originally learned about ongoing class action lawsuits when a Florida-based law firm reached out to Mayor Kevin Brubaker, Deery said. "I do think we should have some serious conversation if we win this money, it should go to the fire department," Councilwoman Mary Siwierka, D-3rd Ward, said. Deery said that it was likely any potential settlement would require the money the city received be spent in a certain way, such as how money received through the city's opioid class action lawsuit was limited to law enforcement or drug rehabilitation purposes.[GN] EQT CORP: Parties Seek Leave to Review Confidential Designations ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; RICE DRILLING B, LLC; VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC; and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to allow the Defendants time to review their confidential designations applicable to the Plaintiffs' brief in support of motion for class certification. To ensure there is no delay to the Court and the parties receiving the full, unredacted version of Plaintiffs' brief and accompanying exhibits and declarations, Plaintiffs have served all parties and the Court with the complete, unredacted version of the brief and accompanying exhibits and declarations. On Aug. 23, 2022, the Court entered a protective order allowing the parties to designate materials as confidential EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZqjHy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Pietragallo, II, Esq. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 263-1818 E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com pbh@pietragallo.com mrb@pietragallo.com - and - Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL LLP 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC Telephone: (412) 765-3800 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4470 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: ajd@kellerpostman.com EQT CORPORATION: Ross Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION; EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY; RICE DRILLING B, LLC; VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC; and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following proposed Class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3): "All persons (natural or fictitious) who own interests or rights in real property situated in Pennsylvania as tenants- in-common with a co-tenant who entered into natural gas leases with the Defendants, and whose property rights the Defendants have violated by drilling for, extracting, and producing natural gas without payment, including the minimum royalties guaranteed by Pennsylvania statute and common law." The Plaintiffs further requested that the Court appoints the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PE184U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Pietragallo, II, Esq. P. Brennan Hart, Esq. Matthew R. Barnes, Esq. PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 263-1818 E-mail: wp@pietragallo.com pbh@pietragallo.com mrb@pietragallo.com - and - Scott M. Hare, Esq. Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq. RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL LLP 11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Matthew T. Logue, Esq. QUINN LOGUE LLC Telephone: (412) 765-3800 200 First Avenue, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 E-mail: matt@mattlogue.com - and - Alex J. Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4470 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: ajd@kellerpostman.com FIVERR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit for Withholding Extra Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raquel, writing for El Adelantado, reports that freelancers and gig shoppers beware: Fiverr, the popular freelancing platform that promises transparent, upfront pricing, is now facing a class action lawsuit in California for (allegedly) slipping in sneaky "junk fees" at checkout. The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County in this month, claims Fiverr misleads customers by showing one price upfront and tacking on unavoidable service fees only at the final payment screen. The practice, according to the plaintiffs, left users feeling cornered, with little option but to accept the higher price after investing time choosing a freelancer. So, if you used Fiverr on or after July 1, 2024, and live in California, you might qualify to join the class action lawsuit. Keep on reading. Lawsuit against Fiver The lawsuit alleges that Fiverr's checkout practices violate multiple California consumer protection laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. At the heart of the complaint is Fiverr's so-called "service fee", which ranges from 5% to 20% or higher, depending on the size of the order. According to the plaintiffs, this fee isn't disclosed until the user is deep into the purchase process and emotionally committed to the gig. Marcus Johnson, the named plaintiff, argues that this last-minute fee is not just frustrating, but straight up deceptive. It creates a scenario where the advertised price feels like a bait-and-switch, catching consumers off guard after they've carefully selected their service provider. How to join the class action against Fiverr If you've used Fiverr recently and felt like you were hit with mystery fees, you might be eligible to join the lawsuit . . . but only if you live in California and purchased services on or after July 1, 2024. At this point, the lawsuit is strictly focused on California residents, since it's based on California state laws. Users outside the state (or outside the U.S.) aren't included, though separate legal actions could pop up if the case gains traction. For now, consumers who fit the criteria don't need to take immediate action. If the court certifies the class, notifications will be sent out, and eligible users will be automatically included unless they opt out. Still, for those eager to get ahead of the game, reaching out to the law firms handling the case (including Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Cohen Malad LLP) is a good option. How much were these "junk fees" really costing you? While Fiverr isn't the only platform to charge service fees, what's irking consumers is the lack of transparency upfront. The lawsuit claims that: Service fees often range from 5% to 20% depending on the order size and type. On smaller orders, the percentage could climb even higher due to flat fees and extra charges, making a $50 logo design suddenly cost $65 or more by checkout. Fiverr's case vs. Nissan's rental scandal—Spot the pattern? This isn't the first time companies have gotten into hot water over fees that appear out of nowhere. In May 2025, Nissan and eight New York car dealerships agreed to pay $3.2 million after being accused of adding illegal junk fees to customers during lease buyouts, with some victims paying up to $5,000 extra in bogus charges. Just like Fiverr's hidden service fees, Nissan's dealerships reportedly waited until customers were at the final purchase step to reveal the add-ons, banking on the fact that people would feel trapped into paying. It's no wonder regulators and consumer watchdogs are cracking down. In California, in particular, lawmakers have been ramping up enforcement on companies that play loose with fee disclosures, seeing them as predatory tactics that hurt working families and small businesses. So next time you need to rent a car, remember to read the fine print! [GN] FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Hybrid Vehicles in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Insidehalton.com reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed in Canada seeking compensation for drivers of Ford plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that allegedly can't be plugged in to charge. The proposed class-action was filed in Toronto court against Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited by Charney Lawyers. It has not been certified and has not been tested in court. What does the proposed class action against Ford allege? The lawsuit is related to 2020 and later model years of the Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEVs are capable of being powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motors. They can be plugged in to recharge the battery, which gives them a certain amount of electric-only driving capability. The lawsuit alleges that Ford circulated a notice of warning to customers around January 2025, warning owners that their vehicle's electric battery may be defective and to stop plugging the vehicles in to recharge the battery due to a risk of it causing a fire, even when the vehicle is not in use. The lawsuit claims that Ford remains unable to repair or replace the batteries, leaving owners unable to recharge their vehicle by plugging them in, reducing the vehicle's ability to function on battery power and has resulted in increased costs for gas and wear and tear of the combustion engine. The lawsuit alleges the price of the PHEV models is substantially higher than for gasoline or hybrid vehicles. The lawsuit further claims buyers of the above vehicles paid a premium for a PHEV to save money on gas, reduce wear and tear on the combustion engines and to help the environment. [GN] GAP INC: Williams Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY WILLIAMS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Joshua Diaz, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Gap, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-7371, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regards to their false and/or misleading statements. On May 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Mar. 1, 2024. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Diane Gujarati granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case. The appellate case is entitled Diaz v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 25-1130, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFFREY WILLIAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan Stern, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees THE GAP, INC., et al. are represented by: Israel Dahan, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 GENERAL MOTORS: Hecht Sues Over Cars' Connecting Rod Defects ------------------------------------------------------------ BOB HECHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01004 (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2025) arises from both Defendants breach of its duties and rules as follows: -- Vehicle manufacturers have certain basic rules and procedures that must be followed. When a vehicle manufacturer sells a vehicle, it has a duty to ensure that the vehicle functions properly and safely for its advertised use and is free from defects. -- When a vehicle manufacturer discovers a defect, it must explicitly disclose the defect and make it right or cease selling the vehicle. -- When a vehicle manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons who purchased one of the following GM vehicles equipped with a 6.2L L87 V8 engine: -- 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade -- 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV -- 2021-2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 -- 2021-2024 Chevrolet Suburban -- 2021-2024 Chevrolet Tahoe -- 2021-2024 GMC Sierra 1500 -- 2021-2024 GMC Yukon -- 2021-2024 GMC Yukon XL 3. Accordingly, the action is brought to remedy various violations of law in connection with the Defendants' manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles have defects in the connecting rod and/or crankshaft engine components which can lead to engine damage and engine failure. In late April 2025, GM issued a Recall for nearly 600,000 of the above-mentioned vehicle models because of this defect ("Recall"). Hecht purchased and continues to own a 2022 Cadillac Escalade equipped with a 6.2L L87 engine. The Plaintiff purchased his vehicle pre-owned in June of 2024 from Lindsey Cadillac in Alexandria, Virginia. General Motors through various entities, markets, distributes, warrants, and sells GM automobiles and parts for those automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, in multiple locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 696-7394 Facsimile: (614) 228-1862 E-mail: Andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: 803-222-2222 Facsimile: 843-494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GEOLOGICS CORP: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Hardy Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROLAND HARDY, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. GEOLOGICS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00825 (E.D. Va., May 13, 2025) arises out of GeoLogics' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes, resulting in a 2023 data breach of documents and information stored on the computer network of GeoLogics. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack beginning in December 2023 which compromised Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and other individuals. The Defendant launched an investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed its system beginning on Dec. 21, 2023, and may have copied and exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about October 16, 2024 and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until May 5, 2025, says the suit. On its computer network, GeoLogics holds and stores certain highly sensitive personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are current or former employees of GeoLogics, contractors, business customers, and other i.e., individuals who provided their highly sensitive and private information in exchange for employment. The GeoLogics provides technical services and employs thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Hilton Wise, Esq. Dylan S. Graham, Esq. Robert D. Witte, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Street, Ste 320 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 934-6377 Facsimile: (703) 934-6379 E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro dgraham@wiselaw.pro rwitte@wiselaw.pro - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- GigaCloud Technology 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 securities class suit in the United States District for the Central District of California. In October 2023, two GigaCloud shareholders separately brought putative securities class actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 27, 2023, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the parties' stipulations to transfer both cases to United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 12, 2024, the Southern District of New York granted plaintiffs' stipulation to consolidate the two lawsuits into one and appoint Sashi Rajan and Meir Spear as co-lead plaintiffs. On June 28, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges both false and misleading statements concerning its use of artificial intelligence and machine learning and false and misleading statements about revenue of the GigaCloud Marketplace. On August 21, 2024, it filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 27, 2025, the Court granted its motion to dismiss in substantial part, including dismissing without prejudice all claims relating to (i) its statements in the IPO and subsequent filings about the GigaCloud Marketplace activities and revenues; and (ii) its statements in the IPO registration statement about the general sophistication of its technology. The Court denied its motion to dismiss on Securities Act claims relating to a small number of statements about the Company's use of artificial intelligence and machine learning, made in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. It believes the residual claims are without merit. GigaCloud Technology Inc. -- http://www.gigacloudtech.com/-- operates as a holding company.[BN] GOURMET DELI: Mongollan Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGEL MONGOLLAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. GOURMET DELI GRILL CORP. f/d/b/a AVENUE DELI, DELI & GROCERY FOOD INC. c/d/b/a FRESH FOOD DELI & GRILL, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:25-cv-02710 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums, unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to timeshaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as alleges that Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to pay employer payroll taxes for Plaintiff and Class Members, as required by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt deli employees, including, but not limited to cooks, food preparers, counter staff, cashiers, deliverers, and floor staff, among others, employed by Defendants on or after the date that is six (6) years before the filing of the Complaint in the case (FLSA Collective Plaintiffs). The Defendants operated a local grocery and deli shop located at 950 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York 11229, which provide deli products and produces to retail consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Hilbert Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAHAM HOLDINGS COMPANY; KAPLAN, INC.; and C T CORPORATION SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01396 (D. Colo., May 7, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.kaptest.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Graham Holdings Company is a diversified education and media company whose principal operations include educational services, newspaper print and online publishing, television broadcasting and cable television systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 Email: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com jmiller@ericsiegellaw.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Jiwani Data Breach Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global 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 Jiwani data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Data Breach Claims – On April 15, 2025, Zain Jiwani filed a class action complaint against Cleo Communications U.S., LLC and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division (Rockford, IL). Plaintiff alleges that Cleo, a file-transfer vendor for the Company, experienced a data breach event that may have impacted the personal information of certain individuals during the secure file transfer process from the Company's systems to third-party systems and that Company data may have been acquired by an unauthorized third party that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities within Cleo's platform in October and December of 2024. Plaintiff alleges that the Company was negligent in failing to secure the data, breached implied contracts and was unjustly enriched. Ten similar class action complaints were filed against the Company shortly thereafter. The class actions generally seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. At this early stage of the litigation, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental. HERTZ GLOBAL: Court Stays Doller Suit Pending Dismissal Bid Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hertz Global 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 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida stayed the Doller securities class suit pending motion to dismiss ruling. On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr, and former Company Chief Financial Officer, Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., known as Hertz, is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida. The company operates its namesake Hertz brand, along with the brands Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental and Thrifty Car Rental. HLT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Metalworkers' OT Wages, Tino Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ODONIEL JHOVANI HERNANDEZ TINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HLT CONSULTING & CONTRACTING, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-04109 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. While employed as a welder at HLT, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek but was paid at the same hourly wage rate for all hours worked, including those over forty. In addition, HLT failed to furnish Plaintiff with compliant wage statements at the end of each pay period, asserts the suit. Accordingly, throughout the six years and 228 days preceding the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff and the Metalworkers performed welding, soldering, brazing, cutting, bending, and forging metal to maintain the structure of the Domino Factory. The Plaintiff and the Metalworkers also took down old pipes, tanks, and miscellaneous metal within the Domino Factory. The Plaintiff resides in the Bronx, New York. He worked for HLT as a welder from June 16, 2015, to February 17, 2025. HLT is a Maryland corporation headquartered and with a principal place of business at 11690 Garland Road, Greensboro, Maryland. According to its website, HLT has over 30 years experience in heavy industrial construction, specializing in heavy industrial maintenance, process piping, equipment installation, millwright services, structural steel fabrication and emergency maintenance work. https://www.hltcontracting.com/ (last visited May 14, 2025).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583 9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com HOMELAND VINYL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Reynolds Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DAWN REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMELAND VINYL PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00750-NAD (N.D. Ala., May 13, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other current and former employees of the Defendant, the Class Members. The Data Breach occurred between on or about June 15, 2024. On April 22, 2025, the Defendant mailed Plaintiff's a letter advising her that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of hers. The Private Information included but is not limited to her full name and Social Security Number. The ransomware group LockBit has claimed responsibility for the attack. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant’s failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for employment or other business relationships. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant’s inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff is and was an individual citizen of Tennessee, residing in the city of Surgoinsville. Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. HVP manufactures a diverse portfolio of vinyl profiles and has six plants throughout the United States. In the ordinary course of applying to work as an employee for Defendant, each employee must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant with sensitive, personal, and private information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 523-0463 E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Brake Problems ----------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges 2023-2025 Hyundai Palisade models are equipped with defective anti-lock braking systems (ABS) and/or traction control systems that hamper the vehicles' ability to decelerate while driving over an uneven surface. The 66-page class action suit against Hyundai Motor America says that although the automaker touts the Palisade as equipped with top-of-the-line safety and tech features, the vehicles' ABS and traction control systems are prone to miscalculate wheel speed when the brakes are applied on rough or uneven road surfaces. This can cause the rapid release and reapplication of the brakes, which in turn can result in a longer stopping distance than drivers reasonably expect, the complaint claims. According to the case, Hyundai has failed to repair the Palisade braking problems in a reasonably timely manner, causing many consumers to continue driving vehicles with faulty braking systems. The alleged Hyundai ABS defect has decreased the value of the Palisade models at issue and rendered the cars unsafe, the suit contends. Per the lawsuit, the ABS defect poses a safety hazard because it can cause a Palisade's ABS and/or traction control system to "interpret wheel movement as wheel lock-up," even when such is not the case, which can in turn lead to longer-than-expected stopping distances "since the brakes are not being applied consistently and effectively." "The increased stopping distance results in the vehicle stopping more slowly than expected and increases the likelihood of collisions, as other drivers may not anticipate the longer stopping distance, which can cause accidents, especially in congested or high-traffic areas," the complaint reads. Further, although the ABS and traction control systems are designed to aid in maintaining control of the vehicle by preventing wheel lock-up and managing traction, the malfunction of the systems and repeated application and release of the brakes can cause a driver to have less control over their ability to slow down the car, the filing says. The Hyundai class action lawsuit adds that the alleged defect can give drivers a "false sense of security" given that they rely on the Palisade's ABS and traction control systems to operate the vehicle safely. In the event of a malfunction, a driver "may not be prepared to manually correct the vehicle's behavior," the case stresses. The case alleges Hyundai has known of the braking system problems since it began selling the Palisade models at issue yet failed to disclose them to proposed class members. "Given how widespread the issue is and the fact that [the] ABS Defect manifests within weeks of the Class Vehicles [sic] sale, Class Vehicle owners have been complaining about the ABS Defect and have been posting such complaints online since at least February 2023," the suit says. The Hyundai Palisade brake issues lawsuit looks to cover all individuals and entities who bought or leased a 2023-2025 Hyundai Palisade in New York or Ohio. [GN] IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Secure PII, Martinez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04009-LJL (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, financial information, and passport or governmental identification numbers. According to the complaint, in the course of its operations, the Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. Between December 24, 2024 and December 27, 2024, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's network, accessed the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information (the "Data Breach Incident"), says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4) and 23(c)(5). The Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: Class: All persons in the United States whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident. California Subclass: All persons residing in California whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident. The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. IHEARTMEDIA + ENTERTAINMENT, INC. operates as a multimedia company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 156 W 56th St. No. 902 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 732-2792 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com IMMUNITYBIO INC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ ImmunityBio 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 final approval hearing on the Salzman securities class suit settlement is scheduled on June 13, 2025. On June 30, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-01216-GPC-VET, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and three of its officers and/or directors, asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Stemming from the company's disclosure on May 11, 2023 that it had received an FDA CRL stating, among other things, that it could not approve the company's BLA for its then product candidate, ANKTIVA with BCG for the treatment of adult patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with CIS with or without papillary tumors, in its present form due to deficiencies related to its pre-license inspection of the company's third-party CMOs, the complaint alleges that the defendants had previously made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material adverse facts regarding its third-party CMOs and the prospects for regulatory approval of the BLA. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On September 27, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, approved their selection of lead counsel, and re-captioned the case In re ImmunityBio, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-01216. On November 17, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which named the same defendants and asserted the same claims as the previous complaint. On January 8, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 20, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2024, the lead plaintiff notified the court that he would proceed with his current pleading, and the defendants answered the complaint on August 29, 2024. On January 25, 2025, following a mediation and the parties' agreement in principle to settle the securities class action for $10.5 million, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 13, 2025. ImmunityBio is a vertically-integrated biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines. INFUSION CAPITAL: Bid for Default Judgment Extended to August 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA CARDENAS, v. INFUSION CAPITAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01386-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to take discovery and extend motion for default judgment deadline. The Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion for default judgment, the contents of which is described in the Court's April 25, 2025, Order, is extended to Aug. 7, 2025. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Feb. 18, 2025. The Plaintiff served the Defendant on March 20, 2025. Infusion is a direct lending firm that provides flexible options to small and mid-sized businesses to aid in their growth. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qWaA6n at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com INSIGHT GLOBAL: Paul Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ WISLINE PAUL, JASMINE MCDONALD, DAWN MAXFIELD, and MELINA TSILFOGLOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02679-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 13, 2025) seeks payment of unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated consultants were knowingly and improperly classified by Insight Global as independent contractors, and as result, did not receive compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a collective action in behalf of themselves and the following collective of potential FLSA opt-in litigants: "All individuals who worked for Insight Global providing training and support to Insight Global's clients in using electronic recordkeeping sustems in the United States from April 2022 to the present and were classified as independent contractors." The Defendant coordinates staffing for information technology educational services for the healthcare industry in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented: John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, PC 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (400) 873-8000 E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Ave. Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: mel@yezbacklaw.com teeples@yezbacklaw.com INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Securities Suit over Disclosures Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Inspire Medical 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 Inspire and two of its executive officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, captioned "City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., et. al.," Court File No. 0:23-cv-03884. On June 28, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On March 24, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The dismissal is now final. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2024, which alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, which alleged violations related to certain prior disclosures of Inspire about the effectiveness of a program intended to help certain customers establish independence in seeking prior authorization from payors for our Inspire therapy. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Inspire common stock between May 3, 2023 and November 7, 2023. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on the development and commercialization of minimally invasive solutions for patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Inspire therapy received premarket approval from the FDA in 2014 and has been commercially available in certain European markets since 2011 and certain Asia Pacific markets since 2021. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Farberov Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- DIMITRY FARBEROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., FREDERICK G. VOGT, JEAN-MARC BELLEMIN, and IGOR P. BILINSKY, Case No. 3:25-cv-04199 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance securities between May 9, 2024, and May 8, 2025, inclusive. The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company's top priority is the commercialization of Amtagvi(TM) (lifileucel), a tumor-derived autologous T cell immunotherapy used to treat adult patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The Company received FDA approval for Amtagvi on February 16, 2024. The Company commercially launched Amtagvi on February 20, 2024. On May 8, 2025, after the market closed, Iovance released its first quarter 2025 financial results, revealing a quarterly total product revenue of $49.3 million, a significant decline from the prior quarter’s $73.7 million. The Company also announced its full fiscal year 2025 total product revenue guidance had been slashed from $450 million -- $475 million to $250 million -- $300 million, a reduction of over 40% at the midpoint. The Company revealed it was "revising full-year 2025 revenue guidance to reflect recent launch dynamics" of Amtagvi. The Company further revealed "the updated forecast considers experience with ATC [authorized treatment center] growth trajectories and treatment timelines for new ATCs." On this news, the price of Iovance shares declined $1.42 per share, or 44.8%, to close at $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that new Authorized Treatment Centers were experiencing longer timelines to begin treating patients with Amtagvi. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Iovance is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company which develops and commercializes cell therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and other solid tumor cancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Farberov v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-4199, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Iovance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IOVA) securities between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR IOVANCE INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO INQUIRE ABOUT PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On May 8, 2025, after the market closed, Iovance released its first quarter 2025 financial results, revealing a quarterly total product revenue of $49.3 million, a significant decline from the prior quarter's $73.7 million. The Company also announced its full fiscal year 2025 total product revenue guidance had been slashed from $450 million -- $475 million to $250 million -- $300 million, a reduction of over 40% at the midpoint. The Company revealed it was "revising full-year 2025 revenue guidance to reflect recent launch dynamics" of Amtagvi. The Company further revealed "[t]he updated forecast considers experience with ATC [authorized treatment center] growth trajectories and treatment timelines for new ATCs." On this news, the price of Iovance shares declined $1.42 per share, or 44.8%, to close at $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) new Authorized Treatment Centers were experiencing longer timelines to begin treating patients with Amtagvi; (2) the Company's sales team and new ATCs were ineffective in patient identification and patient selection for Amtagvi, leading to higher patient drop-offs; (3) the foregoing dynamics led to higher costs and lower revenue because ATCs could not keep pace with manufactured product; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150, Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Dismisses Putative Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin A. Steinberg, J.D., writing for Wolters Kluwer, reports that the court had previously dismissed the suit because the Plaintiffs failed to allege cardholder participation in the market where the anticompetitive conduct occurred. The federal district court in Brooklyn refused to reconsider its dismissal of a putative antitrust class action brought by consumer cardholder Plaintiffs John Palladino, Garib Karapetyan, Steve Palladino, and John Nyl against Visa, MasterCard, and their member banks for violating California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 16700 et. seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et. seq. (UCL). The cardholders had alleged that the Defendants, and all the retail merchants who accept Visa or Mastercard payment cards, conspired to fix the price of the interchange fees charged when a consumer uses a Visa or Mastercard to purchase a retail good or service, harming competition and increasing prices. In dismissing the complaint on December 30, 2024, the court held that the Plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because the alleged injury occurred in a separate, albeit related, market in which the cardholders did not participate. The court now denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because they failed to identify any facts or controlling law that the court overlooked in its December 2024 decision. The court also rejected the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a second amended complaint as futile because Plaintiffs' proposed amendments failed to sufficiently allege participation in the market where anticompetitive conduct occurs (Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:23-cv-01215-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y. May. 12, 2025)). Background. Plaintiffs filed suit on December 30, 2022, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, alleging that Defendants, and all the retail merchants who accept Visa or Mastercard payment cards, conspired to fix the price of the interchange fees charged when a consumer uses a Visa or Mastercard to purchase a retail good or service, which harmed competition and resulted in increased retail prices. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. The Defendant member banks included Visa and Mastercard's member banks, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, National Association, and Bank of America, N.A.; Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citibank, N.A.; U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association; PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC, and PNC Bank National Association; Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, F.S.B., Capital One Bank (USA) National Association, and Capital One National Association; and BMO Harris Bank N.A., successor-in-interest to Bank of the West. The defendants removed the action to federal court. They then transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York for consolidation with the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. On January 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On February 9, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration, and PNC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 30, 2024, the court (1) denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; (2) granted PNC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) denied Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery; and (4) granted Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under the Cartwright Act and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that they participated in the relevant market where anticompetitive behavior occurred, therefore failing California's "market participant rule," requiring antitrust plaintiffs to show an injury within the area of the economy endangered by a breakdown of competitive conditions. Plaintiffs then moved to reconsider the court's decision under Rule 59 and Local Civil Rule 6.3 and requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Motion for reconsideration. The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration because they failed to identify any facts or controlling law that the court overlooked in its December 2024 decision. Plaintiffs did not identify any facts demonstrating that the court ignored evidence about the alleged conspiracy or the Plaintiff's antitrust standing. Plaintiffs argued that the court did not address their allegations regarding "merchant direct participation in the conspiracy," and that cardholders "bear the actual cost of the overcharge in the form of universally higher prices." However, the court explicitly credited Plaintiffs' allegations regarding merchants' participation in the alleged conspiracy. Plaintiffs also argued that the court did not consider Plaintiffs' "participation in the market impacted by the conspiracy." Plaintiffs repeatedly cited Visa's admission that purchases or transactions made with a Visa-branded payment card typically involve a cardholder, merchant, acquiring bank, and issuing bank. It was unclear to the court, and Plaintiffs did not explain, how that admission bears on Plaintiffs' participation in the relevant market or the relevant market definition. In addition, the December 2024 decision acknowledged that merchants, cardholders, acquiring banks, and issuing banks are typically involved in payment card transactions. The court did not overlook the Plaintiffs' arguments that they participated in the relevant market, but rather, concluded that Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that they "participated in the relevant market where anticompetitive behavior occurred." The court explained that Plaintiffs describe separate markets, one where the alleged "horizontal agreements that eradicate competition" occur, and another where "cardholders engage in transactions." It is well-established that participation in a "separate, albeit related" market is insufficient to establish antitrust injury. Furthermore, Plaintiffs identified no controlling law that the court overlooked. First, Plaintiffs argued that this case differs substantively from Salveson because the Salveson plaintiffs did not allege the merchants are co-conspirators, and the Defendants' and Judge Marutollo's insistence that the Salveson holding applies here is and must be premised upon their disbelief in Plaintiffs' co-conspirator allegation. See Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 166 F. Supp. 3d 242, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). The court, however, had concluded in its December order that Plaintiffs' argument did not "alter the structure of the market where the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurs" and that Plaintiffs alleged a transaction that was identical to the structure in Salveson and insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs participated in the relevant market. Second, Plaintiffs' citations to Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979), and Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962), were inapposite. The Supreme Court's decision in Reiter, which pre-dated Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983), by four years, stands for the conclusion that consumers suffer an injury to their property when an alleged antitrust conspiracy forces them to pay a higher price for goods and services. 442 U.S. at 338—42. However, Reiter has no bearing on the Plaintiffs' failure to allege sufficient participation in the relevant market. Plaintiffs also cited Continental Ore for the proposition that "[e]very combination and conspiracy must be judged as a whole without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components" and that courts must view alleged antitrust conspiracies as a whole. Continental Ore concluded that the interpretation and significance of evidence about the existence of an antitrust conspiracy were for the jury rather than a court to decide. 370 U.S. at 701. This argument was also plainly unrelated to the court's conclusion that Plaintiffs failed to establish antitrust standing. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to identify any controlling law that the court overlooked in the December 2024 decision. Third, Plaintiffs argued that the court failed to address the important controlling exception to the rule requiring Plaintiffs' participation in the market affected by the conspiracy, which "exists for parties whose injuries are inextricably intertwined with injuries to market participants or with the injuries the conspiracy sought to inflict." However, none of the cases the Plaintiffs cited apply to the "target exception" to Cartwright Act claims. The cases Plaintiffs cited in support of their argument also only discussed that exception in the context of the federal antitrust laws. These cases do not evaluate antitrust standing or discuss the applicability of the "target exception" under California's Cartwright Act, which is the antitrust law that Plaintiffs alleged Defendants violated, the court observed. Finally, Plaintiffs' arguments about the court's jurisdiction over PNC were barred because Plaintiffs did not object to that portion of Judge Marutollo's Report & Recommendations. It is well-established that "a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report [forfeits] further judicial review of the point." Kotlyarsky v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. 22-2750, 2023 WL 7648618, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2023). Request for leave to amend. The court also denied Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend because the amendment would be futile. As Plaintiffs recognized, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint because "they do not allege cardholder participation in the market where the anticompetitive conduct occurs." Plaintiffs' Proposed Second Amended Complaint sought to allege additional facts that (1) Plaintiffs participate in the "two-sided transaction platform market," which is the market where antitrust injury occurs; (2) merchants participate in the alleged conspiracy; and (3) cardholders pay inflated prices as a result of the alleged conspiracy between banks, networks, and merchants. The December 2024 decision accepted Plaintiffs' allegations that merchants participate in the conspiracy and that cardholders are injured by paying inflated prices resulting from the conspiracy. Therefore, Plaintiffs' additional allegations as to those arguments were futile. The remaining proposed amendments failed to allege that the plaintiffs had participated sufficiently in the relevant market. Moreover, these additional allegations were conclusory. Plaintiffs' proposed amendments failed to allege participation in the market where anticompetitive conduct occurs sufficiently, and the court accordingly denied leave to amend because it would be futile. Plaintiffs' attempt to repackage the relevant market definition as a two-sided payment card market was unpersuasive because they continued to allege that "the interchange-fee contracts are horizontal agreements that eradicate competition among the Visa and Mastercard acquiring banks for merchant-acceptance of their cards, and they alleged the same transaction structure that the court evaluated in the December 2024 decision. As the court explained, Plaintiffs' alleged "transaction structure in this case is the same as the transaction structure in Salveson," which the Second Circuit concluded failed to establish cardholders' antitrust standing. In addition, some of the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments supported the court's conclusion that Defendants set the Rules in a separate market from where cardholders make purchases. The Case is No. 1:23-cv-01215-MKB-JAM. Judge: Brodie, M. Attorneys: Joseph M. Alioto Sr. (Alioto Law Firm) for John Palladino. Boris Bershteyn (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Companies: JPMorgan Chase & Co. [GN] KANAWHA COUNTY BOE: Must File Class Cert Response by June 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.T., by his parents Michelle and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to extend deadlines: Specifically, the Defendant's brief in response to the renewed motion for class certification will be due no later than June 13, 2025, and Plaintiffs' reply brief will be due no later than June 20, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented part In Plaintiffs' motion, they seek extensions of a number of existing deadlines and assert prejudice based on anticipated objections to the breadth of discovery as well as the timing and sequence of expert disclosures. The Defendant objects to additional extensions of disclosure deadlines and, in its motion, proposes an extension of the briefing schedule for class certification, A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JQ9QPW at no extra charge.[CC] KELLY & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Troesch Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN TROESCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY & ASSOCIATES INSURANCE GROUP, INC., D/B/A KELLY BENEFITS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01480-CJC (D. Md., May 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement an information security program designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c) to protect against unauthorized access to that information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered an actual injury, similar to an intangible harm remedied at common law. Defendant's failure to implement an information security program resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's private information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PII in its custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. operates as an insurance broker. The Company provides individual insurance, worker's compensation, benefits administration, consulting, and workforce management solutions. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group serves customers in the State of Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. Frederick A. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 840 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 Facsimile: (202) 776-0975 Email: caboykin@douglasboykin.com fadouglas@douglasboykin.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com KELLY SERVICES: Barrera Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Doobie Barrera, individually and for others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00655 (W.D. Pa., May 13, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“WPCL”). The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees a flat sum for each day worked and no overtime wages (the Defendant’ “day rate pay scheme”). the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees under its day rate pay scheme. The Defendant misclassifies the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees as exempt from overtime. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees on a salary basis. The Defendant’ day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA and the PMWA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees of overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Likewise, the Defendant’ day rate pay scheme violates the WPCL by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees of earned overtime wages on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an Integrated Network Site Superintendent from October 2022 through May 2023. Kelly Services is a staffing company that bills itself as “creating limitless opportunities by connecting people to work in ways that enrich their lives.”[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com KIRBY BEAUTY: Cazares Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kirby Beauty, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00710-PP (E.D. Wisc., May 13, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Cecred.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services PPC International provides to their non-disabled customers through Cecred.com. Cecred.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Kirby Beauty. Yet, Cecred.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, asserts the suit. Thus, Kirby Beauty excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law KT HEALTH: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Judith Adela Fernandez Martinez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. KT HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03983 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.kttape.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. KT HEALTH, LLC, operates the KT Tape online retail store, as well as the KT Tape interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal KUHNS ENTERPRISES: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all other current and former Aggrieved Employees v. KUHNS ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as BRAND ENHANCE PARKING & HOSPITALITY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14001 (Cal. Super., May 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendants engaged in policies and/or practices that required Plaintiff to work off-the-clock, resulting in the Plaintiff not being compensated for all hours actually worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff was required to perform work duties during his meal breaks while he was clocked out. As such, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were not compensated for all hours worked and thus were not paid all minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff, a current non-exempt employee, has been employed by Defendants since 2021. The Defendants did (and continue to do) business as a hospitality parking management company. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly-situated non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County and the state of California corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. Tiara Gose-Hardy, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com tgose@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com LANGER JUICE: Faces Robinson Suit Over Mislabeled Juice Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID E. ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04132-LB (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2025) contends that the Defendant labels and advertises its Langers 100% Juice products as "100% Juice" or "100% Pure Juice," while representations are allegedly false and deceptive because the products contain numerous additives, such as ascorbic acid, pectin, xanthan gum, citric acid, acacia gum, natural flavors, malic acid, and organic flavor. According to the complaint, reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff, are misled into believing they are purchasing beverages made exclusively from juice, when they are not. Through these false and misleading labels, the Defendant has engaged in a deceptive marketing campaign affecting consumers in California and nationwide. The Products at issue are all flavors and varieties of Langers 100% Juice products, including, but not necessarily limited to, Langers 100% Pineapple Juice, Langers 100% Apple Berry Juice, Langers 100% Apple Peach Mango Juice, Langers 100% Apple Grape Juice, Langers 100% Apple Orange Pineapple Juice, Langers 100% White Grape Juice, Langers 100% Apple Cranberry Juice, Langers 100% Red Grape Juice, Langers 100% Concord Grape Juice, Langers 100% Grape Juice, Langer Farms 100% Pineapple Coconut Juice, and Langer Farms 100% Organic Watermelon Strawberry Juice, manufactured or sold by the Defendant to consumers in the United States and the State of California, which are labeled and advertised with the Challenged Representations, says the suit. The Plaintiff periodically purchased the Products beginning in or around May 2021, at a Safeway store and a Walmart store in Alameda County, California, for $3.00 to $4.00 for each Product. The Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, and/or distributor of the Products. Defendant and its agents promoted, marketed, and sold the Products at issue throughout the United States, including the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com LASERSHIP INC: Hunter Can Send Notice to Delivery Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELVIN HUNTER & ABDUL NGOBEH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, Case No. 1:24-cv-02345-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Trenga entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for court authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a common policy or plan with respect to similarly situated persons and will authorize Plaintiffs to provide notice to prospective plaintiffs. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff may send notice of this action in accordance with this Order to the following collective of potential plaintiffs: "All delivery drivers nationwide who provided deliveries for OnTrac Final Mile through one or more of its Master Contractors at any time since Dec. 23, 2021, and did not sign an agreement to arbitrate and/or a class waiver with OnTrac ("proposed Collective Members")"; and -- Within 14 days of this Order, the Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a computer-readable list of the following information for each proposed Collective Member: (1) name; (2) driver identification number; (3) last known mailing address; (4) last known personal telephone number; (5) last known personal email address; (6) work location(s); and (7) dates of work as delivery drivers at each location. OnTrac shall also provide, for those proposed Collective Members whose notices are returned as undeliverable, the last four digits of Social Security numbers. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant and its contractors, acting as joint employers, are misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime wages. Lasership offers pickup, delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3hVoce at no extra charge.[CC] LEMONADE INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Murray Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMONADE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04106 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Lemonade inflicted on him and over 190,000 others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. According to the complaint, the data that Lemonade exposed to the public is unique and highly sensitive. For one, the exposed data included personal identifying information, like driver's license numbers. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided this information to Lemonade with the understanding Lemonade would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. On March 14, 2025, Lemonade was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The actual Data Breach occurred from April 2023 to September 2024. On April 11, 2025, Lemonade notified the public about these details surrounding the Data Breach. Lemonade disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Lemonade as a requirement to obtain insurance products and services from the Defendant. Lemonade is a company that offers several policies, including renter’s insurance, homeowner's insurance, pet insurance, auto insurance, and life insurance in the U.S. and Europe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN P.C. 768 Plandome Rd. Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com - and - Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Dixon Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENITA DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01057-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marston entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The parties' proposed settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel with the assistance of Judge Wells. The settlement gives class members a significant benefit. The Court is satisfied that preliminary approval is appropriate, and so the Court grants Plaintiff's motion. A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2025. In sum, the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and does not otherwise reveal any deficiencies. It is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and that presumption is supported by the Girsh and In re Pet Food factors. The Plaintiff proposes the following class: "All Lincoln University students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester for at least one in-person class who did not withdraw by March 12, 2020, for whom any amount of tuition or fees was paid to Lincoln from any source other than a scholarship, grant, or tuition remission from Lincoln, and whose tuition and/or fees have not been fully refunded." Excluded from the Potential Settlement Class are (i) any students who received full scholarships or tuition remission from Lincoln; (ii) Lincoln and its officers, trustees and their family members; and (iii) all persons who properly execute and file a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Plaintiff, a former Lincoln student, alleges that Lincoln breached an implied contract with its students and was unjustly enriched because, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it closed its campus and offered only remote instruction during the Spring 2020 semester. Lincoln is a public state-related historically black university near Oxford, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=81Nr4Z at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Intercepts Confidential Health Info, Hays Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA HAYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-04181 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) addresses the Defendant's unlawful practice of intercepting the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personal health communications with Covered California, without their knowledge or consent. Like other social networking platforms -- such as Facebook, Snapchat, and TikTok -- LinkedIn offers website operators, such as Covered California, a tracking technology that can be embedded on a website to collect and analyze how individuals interact with a given website. According to the complaint, LinkedIn's tracking technology -- the LinkedIn Insight Tag -- is a snippet of JavaScript computer code embedded on a third-party website that tracks a visitor's actions as they navigate through the website. It logs the URLs of pages they visit, the buttons they click, their IP address, and more. This information is collected in real time and sent to LinkedIn who then utilizes the harvested data to target individuals with advertisements on its social media platform. LinkedIn profits from this large-scale data collection. The Insight Tag is marketed towards businesses that use LinkedIn Ads as a way to "optimize" their advertising campaigns and LinkedIn generates substantial revenue through its advertising services. When a visitor to https://www.coveredca.com/ shopped for health insurance, the Insight Tag intercepted sensitive health information, and sent that information to LinkedIn, providing Defendant with intimate personal facts and data in the form of their sensitive health information, says the suit. LinkedIn is a social networking site that is predominately used for professional networking and career development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Muhammad Allowed to File FAC --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILAL MUHAMMAD, individually and as class representative, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 -10., Case No. 2:23-cv-09846-JFW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff be allowed to immediately file his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"); 2. The Defendants shall file their responsive pleading(s) to the First Amended Complaint no later than 30 days after the FAC is filed; 3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification be continued to 60 days after the Court issues its ruling on the Defendants' motion(s) challenging the FAC; and 4. That the June 2, 2025, Scheduling Conference be continued until after the Court's ruling on the Defendants' motion(s) challenging the FAC. 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 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IGVESa at no extra charge.[CC] MAK ANESTHESIA: Caldwell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------- John Caldwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAK ANESTHESIA GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02666-WMR (N.D. Ga., May 13, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, medical information, and dates of service. In the course of its medical services operations, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' HIPAA protected PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff’s and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. Between July 5, 2024 and July 11, 2024, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's network, accessed Plaintiff’s and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until April 30, 2025, depriving Plaintiff and the Class Members of months to protect themselves from the fallout of the Incident. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. The Plaintiff and Class Members continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data in the possession of its vendor. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their data to the Defendant. The Defendant is a limited liability company incorporated and headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. 6 Grand Georgian Ct. Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com 2 - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Objects to Class Action in Aspen J-1 Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Charme of Aspen Daily News reports that the operator of an upscale Aspen resort hotel is objecting to a former foreign intern's attempt to add former J-1 exchange employees to a lawsuit alleging they were exploited as workers and victims of human trafficking, recent court records show. Mexican national Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez' lawsuit against Marriott International Inc. is now in the stage where his attorneys are seeking the court's certification of a class of plaintiffs comprising "all J-1 visa trainees and interns that worked at the St. Regis Aspen Resort" during an unspecified nine-year period. The members would join Lopez' litigation in a class-action lawsuit that has three unresolved claims against Marriott -- violation of Colorado's human trafficking statute, violation of the federal Trafficking Victims Protections Act and violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The U.S. District Court of Colorado in Denver is the venue for the dispute. St. Regis is not a party in the complaint; defendant Marriott is its parent company. An April 11 court filing by Lopez, a motion for class certification, is viewable exclusively to the court and the parties and counsel in the case; it is closed to the general public and media. The motion is categorized as a "Level 1 Restriction" on court filings containing sensitive personal data such as immigration and visa program details and internal company documents, for example. While that filing is restricted, the executive director of the law firm representing Lopez referred to the Aspen lawsuit in a fiery speech he delivered from the steps of the Colorado State Capitol on April 15 as part of what was billed as a Tax Day Rally protesting tax cuts for corporations and billionaires. In unconfirmed, quantitative terms, attorney David Seligman of the nonprofit firm Towards Justice referred to billionaire homeowners and private aircraft landing in Aspen as a backdrop for what amounts to cheap foreign labor. "There are 100 billionaires who own homes in Aspen -- a hundred. Private jets land in the Aspen airport 10,000 times a year," he said. "Can you imagine that -- 10,000 private jet landings a year." Seligman, a Democrat who earlier this week announced his candidacy for the state attorney general's race in 2026, went on to say: "In the shadow of those billionaires, one of Towards Justice's clients made 14 bucks an hour working 72 hours a week cleaning and cooking for a hotel that charged 2,000 bucks a night for a hotel room. "He was charged 800 bucks a month by his employer -- they took right out of his paycheck -- to pay for his housing. His housing? A bed in a room with several other workers in a dilapidated house an hour away from the hotel where he worked. Human trafficking, right there in the shadows of the homes of billionaires. Working families, you know, are struggling across all of our communities, including across all of our mountain communities." Seligman's remarks came one day after Marriott introduced its formal reply to the lawsuit. The reply countered that Marriott did not recruit Lopez to work as a J-1; however, the hotel company complied with the legal requirements related to the J-1 program with Lopez. Marriott also argued Lopez' allegations are too speculative and it "denies each and every allegation" against it. On Tuesday, May 13, Marriott indicated in a court filing it was challenging the class-action certification. "This case involves (Lopez') claims that he was coerced into working at the St. Regis Aspen Resort when he otherwise would not have done so. Marriott unequivocally denies (Lopez') allegations and submits that they have been disproven in the discovery taken to date," the filing says. According to his lawsuit, Lopez, a 2019 graduate of Universidad Autónoma de Queretaro in Mexico with a degree in culinary arts, began work in the Roaring Fork Valley in the fall of 2020 at a hotel in Snowmass Village, which closed at the end of the ski season in spring 2021. He relocated to St. Regis to continue his internship in May 2020. At St. Regis, however, he performed long hours of menial labor inconsistent with his internship's educational goals, alleges the suit. To fill staffing shortages, the hotel allegedly used Lopez and other interns as cheap labor. The suit claims that Lopez's chores did not provide any value to the internship plan, which called for a 32-hour minimum and 40-hour maximum workweek, and paid him $14 an hour and $21 for overtime. Lopez paid for rental housing through Marriott's $800 deduction from his paycheck each month to live with other interns in what the suit calls a "dilapidated house." Marriott claims Lopez voluntarily accepted the internship, received proper training and compensation and was provided cultural and educational opportunities as required by the J-1 program. Towards Justice initially filed the suit on behalf of Lopez in Pitkin County District Court in October 2023. Marriott had it transferred to the U.S. District Court of Colorado in Denver in December 2023. [GN] MARTEN TRANSPORT: Maurer Sues Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MAURER v. MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-00390-amb (W.D. Wisc., May 15, 2025) is class action suit brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant seeking to recover the unlawfully charged tobacco surcharges and to obtain plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Marten Transport from continuing to collect these improper fees in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Accordingly, Marten Transport, as a fiduciary of the Plan, has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of its participants and to comply with federal law. The Plaintiff also seek appropriate equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3) to address Defendant's ongoing violations of ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions. Marten Transport offers all regular employees health coverage by participating in a medical plan it sponsors and administers. As part of this health coverage, Marten Transport penalizes employees who use tobacco products by charging "tobacco surcharges." However, tobacco surcharges violate ERISA and its discrimination provisions by singling out employees and requiring them to pay more each month for health insurance. Mr. Maurer was an employee of Marten Transport from July 2007 to December 2024. Mr. Maurer paid the tobacco surcharge in the form of additional premiums associated with health insurance offered through his employer during the applicable limitations period. Marten Transport is a billion-dollar international transportation company with locations in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Marten is one of the leading temperature-sensitive truckload carriers in the United States, specializing in transporting and distributing food, beverages, and other consumer packaged goods that require a temperature-controlled or insulated environment. Marten Transport has thousands of employees consisting of drivers, mechanics, maintenance, and support personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. Smith Krivoshey, PC, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Suite 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-Mail: Brittany@skclassactions.com MELNOR INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Douglass Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MELNOR INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00670 (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2025) arises from the Defendant's ongoing failure to effectively communicate with Douglass because the Website is not sufficiently compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, thereby denying Douglass full and equal access to the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities., The Defendant owns, leases, and/or operates physical facilities, including corporate offices, manufacturing facilities, shipping and distribution centers. From its physical facilities, the Defendant makes various goods, like lawn and garden tools, and services, like customer service, return processing, and technical support, available to consumers in Pennsylvania and across the country. Consumers may remotely access the goods and services at Defendant's physical facilities by phone and email, or through the internet at Defendant's website, located at https://melnor.com/. Douglass is legally blind. As a result of his blindness, Douglass uses screen reader auxiliary aids to remotely access the goods and services available at Defendant's physical facilities through the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Bid for Class Cert in Gaudet Suit Due Nov. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERMAINE GAUDET, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-00694-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order a case management order as follows: -- Amend Pleadings: Sept. 30, 2025 -- Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 20, 2025 -- Designation of Opening Experts March 18, 2026 with Reports: -- Designation of Rebuttal Experts April 18, 2026 with Reports: -- All Discovery Cutoff: June 3, 2026 -- Completion of ADR: June 19, 2026 -- Filing of Dispositive/Daubert Aug. 3, 2026 Motion(s): -- Trial Setting Conference: Jan. 12, 2027 Metropolitan is a major global insurance and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gCwNcX at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Seeks to File Class Materials Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed: Document Portion(s) Designating Entity and to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing Plaintiff's Redactions The material redacted in the Reply in on Pages: 4-5 Reply has been designated Support of "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – her Motion ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" by for Class Michaels. The Plaintiff Certification therefore is not in a position to place this information in the public record. Declaration Redactions: The material redacted in the of Jonas in: par.3 n.1, Declaration has been Jacobson in par. 6-8, 10 designated "HIGHLY Support of CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' Plaintiff's EYES ONLY" by Michaels. The Reply in Support Plaintiff therefore is not of her Motion in a position to place this for Class information in the public Certification record. Michaels Stores is an American privately held arts and crafts retail chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w0XBYV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, 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 simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit in UK Over Licensing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- ICLG.com reports that the software giant is facing allegations of anti-competitive licensing practices in what could become one of the largest class actions in UK history. A class action lawsuit has been launched in the UK against Microsoft accusing the US technology company of anti-competitive practices that allegedly hiked up software licensing prices for customers. The opt-out class action claim was filed on May 14 by former Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) senior prosecutor Alexander Wolfson on behalf of all UK residents and public bodies that have purchased licences for certain Microsoft software products, including Microsoft Office and Windows, from 1 October 2015. Wolfson's intention to file the claim was first announced by London headquartered litigation-focused law firm Stewarts in September 2024, which confirmed that a letter before action had been sent to the software behemoth. EXPLOITING ITS POSITION According to Future Market Insights, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle currently hold a collective 50% share of the global software distribution market, which, as of 2024, was valued at USD 129.6 billion. The claim states that, since 2015, the company has exploited its position at the top of this multibillion-dollar market and limited competition to new licences from pre-owned licences for Microsoft products, forcing customers to pay more than they should have for the software. Wolfson has retained the services of Stewarts' head of competition Kate Pollock and partners Stuart Carson and Marc Jones, alongside a wider Stewarts team. He is also instructing counsel teams at Matrix Chambers and Monckton, as well as a group of expert witnesses for economic-based testimony. ACCOUNTABILITY Proposed class representative Wolfson commented: "Microsoft's actions have had a significant and far-reaching impact on UK consumers, businesses and public bodies. This claim seeks to hold Microsoft to account and to secure compensation for the many affected members of the class." Noting that "billions of pounds" could potentially be at stake, he added: "This case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules." Pollock said: "Microsoft's conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organisations that rely on its software for daily business operations [. . . ] This case has the potential to restore greater fairness and accountability to the UK's increasingly digital economy." Ellora MacPherson, managing director and chief investment officer at litigation funder Harbour, which is funding the class action, said the company was "delighted" to support the case that "will give access to justice to tens of thousands of individuals and public and private organisations in the UK". She continued: "This action is likely to be one of the largest the UK has seen and is an example of how big corporate entities can be held to account." SCRUTINY FROM THE CMA Microsoft received another legal blow in the UK in January, when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally concluded that Microsoft and Amazon Web Services' (AWS) dominant market position is a detriment to competition in the UK cloud services market. The watchdog's investigation is still ongoing. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Class Cert Filing in Holland Due March 13, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE HOLLAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00208 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by June 27, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff shall file a class certification motion and a memorandum in support of such motion by March 13, 2026. 3. The parties shall serve pre-class certification discovery requests by Dec. 19, 2025. The last date to take pre-class certification discovery depositions shall be Jan. 23, 2026. 4. The parties shall select a mutually agreeable mediator and engage in mediation no later than Feb. 27, 2026. 5. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2, the Court schedules case management conference to be held on Feb. 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Huntington. The Court defers further scheduling concerning post-class certification discovery until ruling is made on class certification. The Court further cancels the scheduling conference set for May 27, 2025. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties Midland is an American debt buyer and debt collection company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cy3eI1 at no extra charge.[CC] MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Settles Wheat Thins Class Action for $10MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Mondelez International Inc. agreed to a $10 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that Wheat Thins crackers are falsely advertised as "100% whole grain." The Mondelez International class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased Original Wheat Thins, Reduced Fat Wheat Thins, Sundried Tomato & Basil Wheat Thins, Big Wheat Thins, Ranch Wheat Thins, Hint of Salt Wheat Thins, Cracked Pepper & Olive Oil Wheat Thins, Spicy Sweet Chili Wheat Thins or other Wheat Thins products labeled "100% whole grain" between Oct. 13, 2018, and May 9, 2025. Plaintiffs in the false advertising class action lawsuit claim that Wheat Thins are not made from 100% whole grain wheat. Instead, the crackers are allegedly made from refined grains, which are not whole grains. Wheat Thins are a cracker product made by Nabisco, a subsidiary of Mondelez International. The crackers are sold at retailers, such as Walmart and Target. Mondelez has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Wheat Thins class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $4.50 per household. With proof of purchase, class members can receive between $8 and $20 per household, depending on the number of products purchased. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 7, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Mondelez International class action settlement is scheduled for Dec. 11, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 7, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who are 18 years or older and who purchased Original Wheat Thins, Reduced Fat Wheat Thins, Sundried Tomato & Basil Wheat Thins, Big Wheat Thins, Ranch Wheat Thins, Hint Of Salt Wheat Thins, Cracked Pepper & Olive Oil Wheat Thins and Spicy Sweet Chili Wheat Thins products labeled "100% whole grain" between Oct. 13, 2018, and May 9, 2025. Potential Award Up to $20 with proof of purchase or $4.50 without proof of purchase. Proof of Purchase Receipts or purchase confirmations. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/07/2025 Case Name Wallenstein, et al. v. Mondelez International Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Final Hearing 12/11/2025 Settlement Website WheatThinsClassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Wallenstein v. Mondelez International Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@WheatThinsClassSettlement.com (833) 421-4690 Class Counsel Dave Fox Joanna Fox Courtney Vasquez FOX LAW APC Defense Counsel Jason Stiehl CROWELL & MORING LLP [GN] MTM TRANSIT LLC: Casillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MTM Transit, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Casillas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MTM Transit, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006729 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MTM Transit -- https://mtmtransit.com/ -- offers viable solutions that help public transit agencies connect their community's tran.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Hyun, 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 NATIONAL GENERAL: Seeks Leave to File Bid for Reconsideration ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court to enter an order granting leave pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 5, 2025, order on renewed motion for class certification. This motion is brought pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) on grounds that there was a manifest failure by the Court to consider a dispositive legal argument, presented before the issuance of the Order, that individual issues regarding class members' standing funder Article III will predominate over common questions. Alternatively, the motion is brought on grounds that there is good cause for the Court to reconsider the Order to address this dispositive legal argument. This motion is based on this notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the record in this matter. Reconsideration is warranted because in granting class certification as to Plaintiffs' unfair competition claims, the Court failed to address a dispositive legal argument concerning predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Defendants argued that individual issues regarding class members' Article III standing will predominate over common questions. The Plaintiffs initially moved for class certification on July 7, 2023. The Court certified the class defined as follows: "Policyholders of NG Defendants (NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG) who purchased California GDD private passenger automobile policies, including renewals, and were not offered the lowest available GD rate within the control group during the Class Period." The control group is defined as NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG from Jan. 22, 2011, to present; and includes PEIC during the period of April 19, 2013, to July 18, 2014. National General is a property and casualty insurance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlpJc2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendants are represented by: Sanford L. Michelman, Esq. David F. Hauge, Esq. Marc R. Jacobs, Esq. Mona Z. Hanna, Esq. Vincent S. Loh, Esq. MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 299-5500 Facsimile: (310) 299-5600 E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com dhauge@mrllp.com mjacobs@mrllp.com mhanna@mrllp.com vloh@mrllp.com NATIONAL SENIOR BENEFIT: Ayers Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Funding Now, LLC. The case is styled as Susan Ayers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. National Senior Benefit Advisors, Inc. doing business as: NSBA Insurance Agency, Case No. 3:25-cv-01219-CAB-VET (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. National Senior Benefit Advisors, Inc. (NSBA) -- https://nsbagroup.com/ -- is a growth oriented organization that exists to enrich the lives of its members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gustavo Esquivias Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C 195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 265-3332 Email: david@kazlg.com NATURE'S BOUNTY: Whyble Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAROL WHYBLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Carol Whyble, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Nature's Bounty Co., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-3257, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendant's false and misleading advertising of its glucosamine joint health products, Osteo Bi-Flex. On June 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On May 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 3, 2022. On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed third amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 29, 2024. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Nelson Stephen Roman entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court rules that because it previously identified the precise defects contained in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, and those defects remain uncured, the Plaintiffs' claims are now dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co., Case No. 25-1126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CAROL WHYBLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: TIMOTHY G. BLOOD, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. is represented by: Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Colley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data ------------------------------------------------------------ William Colley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00687 (E.D. Mo., May 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former Neighbors customers' names, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, and/or drivers licenses from hackers. At some time, Neighbors discovered unauthorized access to its network. On January 14, 2025, Neighbors concluded that an unauthorized actor, between September 20, 2024, and September 21, 2024, accessed and acquired files containing customers' private, personal identifiable information maintained by Neighbor'. The Plaintiff and "Class Members" were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Private Information of numerous Class Members that was compromised and exfiltrated in the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, full names and Social Security numbers. There has been no assurance offered by Neighbors that all Private information exposed in the Data Breach has been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Neighbors is a federally chartered credit union with its principal place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, 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 - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Email: jonm@pittmandutton.com NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hollis Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00705 (E.D. Mo., May 15, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on May 8, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the 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 Defendant is a credit union headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. Recently, the Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity on its IT Network. In response, the Defendant engaged third-party forensic specialists to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach.3 6. Defendant’s investigation confirmed an unauthorized individual accessed data within its IT Network between September 20, 2024, and September 21, 2024. Accordingly, 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 unauthorized 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to the Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant is a financial cooperative that offers a range of financial products and services to its members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS GENTILE 14 NE Ave, Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NESTLE USA: Calangian Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Beverages ---------------------------------------------------------- JILL CALANGIAN; and NATALIE GIANNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC. dba San Pellegrino, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04005 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's Sparkling Fruit Beverages, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant implies that the Products are healthy and conducive to health and physical well-being, despite containing between 17 and 26 grams of added sugar per serving. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had they known that the Defendant's representations were false and misleading. Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates, confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice creams, and frozen food products. Nestle USA distributes its products through supermarket stores worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, California 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com NEW YORK, NY: 1600 Nelson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- 1600 NELSON AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled 1600 Nelson Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation, on behalf of those individuals and families entitled to homeownership and/or occupancy in its housing project developed pursuant to Article XI of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-9616, in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants seeking to recover the Plaintiffs' homes and other private properties--i.e., their homestead, real, personal and other tangible and intangible private property appurtenant thereto and the value thereof that were unlawfully taken by the City through seizures of said properties under a program that the City has described and advanced since 1996 as its Third Party Transfer Program (the "TPT Program"). On Mar. 29, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted on Mar. 31, 2025. Counts XIV and XV are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and jurisdiction, respectively. Counts I-V are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as untimely. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction of Counts VIXIII, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c). All claims against all parties having been resolved, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions, and close this case. The appellate case is captioned Adon v. City of New York, Case No. 25-1127, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants 1600 NELSON AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, on behalf of those individuals and families entitled to homeownership and/or occupancy in its housing project developed pursuant to Article XI of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law, et al. are represented by: Jesse Douglass Gribben, Esq. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, AFLCIO 125 Barclay Street New York, NY 10007 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Muriel Goode-Trufant, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 - and - Brian J. Markowitz, Esq. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 NEXT-GEN CRUISES: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Angel Taylor, and other similarly situated v. NEXT-GEN CRUISES LTD. CO., Case No. CACE-25-007137 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 13, 2025), is brought LTD. CO (hereinafter, collectively "Defendant") seeks to recover from Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"). This action is brought on behalf of all "personal travel employees" and other individuals holding comparable positions with different titles employed by Defendant within the United States of America. The Defendant required Plaintiff and others similarly situated "personal travel employees" to work in Non-Exempt positions without overtime compensation. Also, Defendant requested Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work unpaid hours "off the clock" in work weeks while working approximately 47 hours in some weeks without overtime pay. Throughout Plaintiff s employment, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week in a given workweek. the Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked more than 40 per week, as proscribed by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida based on Defendant paying Plaintiff hourly without overtime or salary without overtime, says the complaint. The Plaintiff performed work for Defendant as non-exempt personal travel employees from October 23, 2023, through December 18, 2023. The Defendant is a foreign limited liability company with one of its locations in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE & HOOGERWOERD PLLC 2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 Email: jremer@rgph.law NEXTRA USA: Burns Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nextra USA Corporation d/b/a Bacn, et al. The case is styled as Morgan Burns, Ismael Dominguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nextra USA Corporation d/b/a Bacn, Case No. 1:25-cv-02686 (E.D.N.Y, May 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nextra USA Corporation -- https://nextranusa.com/ -- offer new and used trucks from top brands like Mack, Volvo, Ford, GMC, Isuzu, and Kalmar Ottawa.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Conejo Wins Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN CONEJO, CHRISTOPHER ASHMORE, JASON MACK, MIGUEL ACOSTA, JEFFREY MARTIN, DAVID KELSCH-HAGHIRI, REBECCA HAMPTON, RACHEL CALDWELL, ALFONSO BARAJAS, ANGEL LOUGH, COLE TIMIAN, MARQUIVAS AVEREY CRAWFORD, CODY PITTSER, AND DANIEL GARZA, in their individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS ("NIC") MALWITZ, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00232-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23: The Court certifies a Class with the following definition: "all individuals, aside from the Defendant Malwitz and his immediate family, who worked for Steel Huggers, LLC and the Defendant Malwitz and are Plaintiffs in this action and/or were identified in the Steel Huggers bankruptcy filings as being owed unpaid wages." The Court further entered an order as follows: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, -- designating the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, -- designating the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel, and -- approving the issuance of judicial Notice as proposed. In this case, initially five individuals filed an action against Defendant Nicholas Malwitz, alleging that they were owed unpaid wages and related damages for work performed at Steel Huggers, LLC, which was and is subject to a bankruptcy stay and that Defendant Malwitz was their joint "employer" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado Wage Claim Acts. Subsequently, nine more individuals filed consent forms indicating their desire to join in the action, with similar unpaid wages claims. The now operative Second Amended Complaint has 14 Plaintiffs. Aside from these 14 Plaintiffs, there are an additional 54 individuals whom Defendant Malwitz has signed bankruptcy paperwork for Steel Huggers indicating that they had priority wage claims. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E5em8K at no extra charge.[CC] NOK ENTERPRISE: Carvajal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Miguel Marin Carvajal, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as members of the FLSA Collective, and as a Class representative for the IWPCA Class, v. Nok Enterprise Inc. d/b/a as Noon O Kabab, Nok Group Inc. d/b/a as Noon O Kabab, Nima Corp. d/b/a as Noon O Kabab, Nima Corporation Inc., d/b/a as Noon O Kabab and Javad Naghavi, Individually pursuit to the IWPCA, Case No. 1:25-cv-05262 (N.D. May 13, 2025) is a class action suit alleging that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current, former and future employees of the Noon O Kabab are entitled to be paid for all hours worked; to receive minimum wage for all hours worked; to receive the overtime rate of pay for all overtime hours worked, to earn and be paid his vacation time and to be paid all of his earned tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the Illinois Paid Leave Act. The Defendant operates three restaurants: The first and oldest restaurant is located and operates in the City of Chicago at 4661 N Kedzie Ave., a second location is in Highwood at 246 Green Bay Road, and a third location at 8821 W 87th St, Hickory Hills, IL 60457. The Plaintiff worked at two of the three locations (Chicago and Highwood).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over $6.25 Billion Buyout Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Morgan of Bizwomen reports that Seattle-based department store chain Nordstrom Inc. (NYSE: JWN) is facing a new class-action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders. The lawsuit, filed in King Count Superior Court, alleges the Nordstrom family used its influence to advance its $6.25 billion buyout of the chain. Mexican retailer and fellow shareholder El Puerto de Liverpool, which is teaming up with the family to buy the company, is also a defendant in the lawsuit. Nordstrom didn't respond to a request for comment but said in an SEC filing the chain "intends to vigorously defend against" the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Nordstrom CEO Erik Nordstrom and Chief Brand Officer Peter Nordstrom in 2023 pushed the board to consider a sale, after which the two brothers conducted sale negotiations and "gained valuable insight concerning the company's value, marketability and potential suitors," according to the lawsuit. In early 2024, according to the lawsuit, the two told the board the Nordstrom family wouldn't sell their shares to any seller besides the family itself, and given the Nordstrom family owned 33.4% of the shares, the family could easily block any other sale. The lawsuit also alleges the board didn't protect non-Nordstrom family and non-Liverpool stockholders and instead "capitulated and effectively let the Nordstrom family and its loyalists pilot the sale process to achieve their preferred deal before rubber-stamping the merger agreement." The brothers allegedly didn't meet deadlines of a special committee meant to oversee the sale process and negotiated outside the committee's purview. The lawsuit also points to a moratorium statute that doesn't allow groups that own more than 10% of a company's shares to buy the company for five years after forming an agreement to do so, unless the group has approval from the board. The suit alleges, despite the Nordstrom family and Liverpool gaining board approval in September, the consortium had agreed to acquire the company before that approval. Other allegations in the lawsuit include that advisers to the special committee valued Nordstrom as much as 28% higher than the final acquisition price, and that the Nordstrom family and Liverpool will receive a $17.8 million dividend payout before taking it private. The lawsuit is seeking damages on behalf of non-Nordstrom family and non-Liverpool stockholders. Nordstrom announced the deal in December. The Nordstrom family will own 50.1% of the company after it closes, and Liverpool will own the other 49.9%, with the deal expected to close in the first half of this year. Liverpool has owned about 10% of Nordstrom since 2022. The first reports of a go-private deal came in March of last year after a similar attempt in 2018 was voted down by Nordstrom's board. A similar lawsuit filed in Seattle federal court in March sought to block a shareholder vote on the acquisition. U.S. District Judge John Chun earlier this month denied the motion. Nordstrom was founded in 1901. The chain operates more than 350 stores across its Nordstrom, Nordstrom Local and Nordstrom Rack brands. Nordstrom generated $15 billion in revenue in its fiscal 2024, up from $14.7 billion the year before. [GN] NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sheely Appeals Tossed Extend Time Bid to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- REVEREND JOSEPH SHEELY, et al., interested parties, are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to extend time for appeal in the lawsuit entitled In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, Case No. 4:23-cv-00242, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other persons adversely affected by a train derailment and chemical spill (vinyl chloride) which occurred on February 3, 2023, in or near East Palestine, Ohio, which was proximately caused by the negligence of the Defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway Company and/or the Defendant, Norfolk Southern Corporation. On Sept. 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of settlement. On September 25, 2024, Judge Benita Pearson approved a $600 million settlement between Norfolk Southern and people who live near East Palestine, where the company's train derailed and contaminated the community. Judge Pearson ruled that the settlement of the class action lawsuit was fair, reasonable and adequate. On Jan. 16, 2025, Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for an order requiring objector Rev. Joseph Sheely to post an appeal bond and for an order requiring Appellants Zsuzsa Troyan, Tamara Freeze, Sharon Lynch, and Carly Tunno to post an appeal bond. On Mar. 21, 2025, Objectors filed a motion for extension to appeal Judge's Ruling on Appeal Bond Order until 7 days from the date of the Judge's Ruling, which Judge Pearson denied on Mar. 30, 2025. The appellate case is entitled In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, Case No. 25-3342, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 2, 2025. [BN] Interested Parties-Appellants REVEREND JOSEPH SHEELY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David M. Graham, Esq. DAVID GRAHAM INSURANCE LAWYERS 1080 Montgomery Avenue, N.E. Cleveland, TN 37311 Telephone: (904) 567-6529 Plaintiffs-Appellees HAROLD R. FEEZLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul D. Clement, Esq. CLEMENT & MURPHY 706 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 836-1888 - and - David C. Harman, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH JARDINE 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1340 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 852-5600 - and - Jay H. Henderson, Esq. 614 W. Water Street Kerrville, TX 78028 Telephone: (830) 370-3992 Defendants-Appellees NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Alan Evan Schoenfeld, Esq. WILMER HALE 250 Greenwich Street 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 OFFERPAD SOLUTIONS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------- Offerpad Solutions 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 August 26, 2024, a purported stockholder of Offerpad filed a complaint against Alexander Klabin, Spencer Rascoff, Ken Fox, Jim Lanzone, Gregg Renfrew, Rajeev Singh, Robert Reid, Michael Clifton, Supernova Partners, LLC, Brian Bair, and Michael Burnett. The case is captioned "In re Supernova Partners Acquisition Co. SPAC Litigation," C.A. No. 2024-0887 (Del. Ch.). OfferPad, LLC entered into a definitive merger agreement to acquire Supernova Partners Acquisition Company, Inc. in a reverse merger transaction on March 17, 2021. It generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger between OfferPad, Inc. and Supernova Partners Acquisition Company, Inc. on September 1, 2021. Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, disgorgement of any unjust enrichment, rescissory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 19, 2024, proceedings related to the complaint were temporarily stayed. On February 24, 2025, the court dismissed the defendants from the complaint without prejudice, which terminated the case as to the Offerpad defendants. Offerpad provides comprehensive solutions for simplifying the process of buying and selling homes using its proprietary real state technology platform. It is based in Tempe, Arizona and operates in over 1,900 cities and towns in 27 metropolitan markets across 18 states. PARTS AUTHORITY: Class of Delivery Drivers Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILE CASEY, et al., v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02659-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich will grant in part and deny in part the plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court will conditionally certify a class of delivery drivers who were subject to the same allegedly illegal policies. It will, however, exclude from the class delivery drivers who worked at store locations other than the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs' proposed notice provides most of the necessary information, its format and structure are less than clear, and the notice includes plaintiffs that the Court will not certify. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants engaged in a policy and practice of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the state wage laws of D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. The Plaintiffs Casey and Foust were hired by DAO Logistics to work as delivery drivers at six Parts Authority locations in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Parts is an automobile parts and sales distributor. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J3JQGu at no extra charge.[CC] PAYPAL INC: Court Consolidates Browser Extension Suit w/ Luong -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re PayPal Honey Browser Extension Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-09470-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order discharging order to show cause and consolidating cases: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Luong v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-2657-BLF (N.D. Cal.) and In re PayPal Honey Browser Extension Litigation, No. 5:24- cv-9470-BLF (N.D. Cal.) are consolidated for all purposes, and all future filings will be filed in In re PayPal Honey Browser Extension Litigation, No. 5:24-cv-9470- BLF (N.D. Cal.). 2. The Court orders that the Clerk of the Court administratively close Luong v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 5:25-cv-2657-BLF (N.D. Cal.). The Luong Action and the Consolidated Action, which are both pending before the Court, present similar factual and legal issues, as they each involve the same subject matter and are based on the same alleged wrongful conduct. Specifically, the Plaintiffs in both Actions bring claims against Defendants alleging that Defendants’ use of the Honey browser extension misappropriated referral commissions. Because the cases are based on the same subject matter, arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, assert similar causes of action, define similar and overlapping classes, alleging similar wrongful conduct, and seeking similar remedies, the Court finds that the same discovery and class certification issues will be relevant to both Actions. Thus, consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. As such, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OqnhEs at no extra charge.[CC] PEARSOX CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PEARSOX CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-04077 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive, https://pearsox.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Air Mesh Gold Shirt from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff 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; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase an Air Mesh Gold Shirt, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: athletic apparel and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase an Air Mesh Gold Shirt. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase an Air Mesh Gold Shirt but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on the Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so. The Defendant operates the Pearsox online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PETS BEST: Chery Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------- Francesse Chery, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PETS BEST INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC., Case No. CACE-25-007161 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 13, 2025), is brought for the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful debt collection. On a date better known by Defendant, the Defendant began attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff and members of the FCCPA Class, as defined below ("Consumer Debt"). The Consumer Debt is an alleged obligation to pay money arising from a transaction entered into primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, involving Defendant, the creditor of the Consumer Debt or its agent, and Plaintiff as the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt ("Subject Service"). The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor. On June 9, 2024, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff regarding the Consumer Debt ("Electronic Communication"). The Plaintiff did not provide prior consent for Defendant to send communications, including communications in connection with the collection of a debt during the hours between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in Plaintiffs time zone. The Defendant sent, and Plaintiff received, the Electronic Communication during the prohibited hours between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM--hours when people, including Plaintiff, are typically resting, sleeping, or enjoying their intimate and personal time. This conduct invaded Plaintiffs privacy and caused annoyance, stress, and emotional distress. As a direct result of the foregoing, Defendant caused an intrusion upon Plaintiffs reasonable expectation of digital privacy, resulting in a concrete and particularized disruption to Plaintiffs peace, rest, and sense of personal security. This intrusion occurred at a time statutorily protected for the purpose safeguarding individual peace from debt-related communications, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware Company, with its principal place of business located in South Coast Metro, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin L. Lewis, Esq. KL LAW, PLLC 110 SE 6th St., Floor 17 Fort Lauderdale, fl 33301 Phone: (954) 551-2295 Service Email: service@kevinlewislaw.com Secondary Email: kl@kevinlewislaw.com PICTSWEET CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Santos Due Oct. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEAZAR SANTOS, v. THE PICTSWEET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03181-AB-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr entered an order adopting the Defendant's proposed additional deadlines regarding class certification: -- Class certification expert Aug. 29, 2025 disclosures/reports due: -- Rebuttal class certification Sept. 16, 2025: expert disclosures/reports due -- Last day to file motion for Oct. 3, 2025: class certification: -- Opposition to motion for class Oct. 31, 2025: certification due: -- Reply re motion for class Nov. 7, 2025: certification due: -- Hearing on motion for class Nov. 21, 2025: Certification: Pictsweet is a family-owned full service grower, processor and marketer of frozen vegetables. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TrjSET at no extra charge.[CC] PIO PIO: Yallico Class Suit Seeks to Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ABRAHAM LOPEZ, ALEX PEREZ, CELSO IBAÑEZ, DONAL BARRIOS, EUGENIO REYES VALDEZ, and RIGOBERTO PEREZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. PIO PIO NYC, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, SIPAN RESTAURANT OF NEW YORK INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO OCHO INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO 34 INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO 85 INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO PIO EXPRESS INC. d/b/a PIO PIO EXPRESS, POLLOS A LA BRASA PIO, PIO, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, PIO-PIO RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a PIO PIO, EL PILLO INC. d/b/a AMARU, MOCHICA GROUP CORP., INES YALLICO, and AUGUSTO YALLICO, Case No. 1:25-cv-03998 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid wages due to improper meal credit deductions; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In June 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a delivery worker at their Upper East Side location. In June 2018, Defendants changed Plaintiff Lopez's position from a delivery worker to a cook. The Defendants operate a chain of nine Peruvian Restaurants and a bar as a single integrated enterprise. All nine restaurants share the trade name "Pio Pio." The Pio Pio Restaurants are operated from a single central office located at 3268 85th Street, East Elmhurst, New York. The central office is the operational headquarters of Corporate Defendant Mochica Group Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented 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 PIZZA HUT INC: Brennan TCPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Brennan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pizza Hut, Inc., Pizza Hut LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00213 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01218-S to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pizza Hut, LLC -- https://www.pizzahut.com/ -- is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain and international franchise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Harold Berg, Esq. BERG LAW LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Phone: (504) 526-2921 Email: nick@berglaw.us - and - Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Kristine Soppet, Esq. HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP 1100 Louisiana St., Ste. 4300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 821-7000 Email: kristi.soppet@hklaw.com PLANETART LLC: Cole Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Planetart LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05360 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, and operate its website, Gifts.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their non-disabled customers through Gifts.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gifts.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Offspring Beauty. Yet, Usa.1more.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Gifts.com 1More USA excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit. The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States.BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ PROVIDENCE TEACHERS UNION, AFT LOCAL 958, AFL-CIO v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01238-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2025) is a class action alleging that PowerSchool failed to safeguard highly sensitive personally identifiable information of students, teachers, and other individuals, including minors, using PowerSchool products, including their name, social security number, demographic information, date of birth, phone number, email address, and medical information, and were damaged thereby. The Plaintiffs and Class Members entrusted Defendant PowerSchool with their highly sensitive PII and reasonably expected that PowerSchool would safeguard their PII at least in accordance with PowerSchool's representations. Accordingly, PowerSchool knew the sensitive PII it maintained is the type of information highly sought after by hackers. With this knowledge, PowerSchool assured its customers that all user data PowerSchool retained or collected would be kept safe. PowerSchool failed to fulfill that responsibility in December 2024 when PowerSchool permitted a serious system vulnerability to arise and be exploited, resulting in the massive Data Breach. After exposing thousands of students' and teachers' PII to hackers, PowerSchool failed to timely and properly notify Plaintiff and Class Members, asserts the suit. To date, PowerSchool has failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Breach to affected individuals -- only beginning to provide limited notice months after the breach occurred. As a result of PowerSchool's misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages. Plaintiff PTU is a professional organization asserting claims on behalf of itself and its impacted members. The Defendant offers products and services including: an SIS platform; document management system; enrollment/attendance manager; recruitment platform; parent communication platform; and Naviance, a tool for planning a student's academic success, to clients in the education industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. Steven M. Jodloski, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Ste. 240 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 923-3939 E-mail: briano@dicellolevitt.com stevej@dicellolevitt.com - and - Carol C. Villegas, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com PROSPECT MEDICAL: Cannavo Files Class Action Suit in N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as AMANDA CANNAVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 25-08001-sgj (N.D. Tex., May 2, 2025). The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants seeking injunctive relief. Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. is a private healthcare company based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Leininger, Esq. OTTESON SHAPIRO LLP 4851 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Ste. 650 Dallas, TX 75244 Telephone: (214) 619-8325 Email: jcl@os.law - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com RAM PAYMENT: Plaintiffs' Pending Class Cert. Bid Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERMINARIO v. RAM PAYMENT, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-12130 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 1, 2020), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order administratively terminating the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification. Upon completion of discovery, or the parties' representation that no further discovery is needed for purposes of the Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs shall advise whether they would like their Motion for Class Certification to be reinstated or if they will be filing a new motion, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act. RAM Payment offers account maintenance and payment processing services.[CC] RAW SUGAR: Corona Sues Over Deceptive Personal Care Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Corona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAW SUGAR, LLC and SUGAR BUYER, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01222-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2025), is brought concerns the illegal, unfair, and deceptive labeling, marketing, and sale of Raw Sugar’s personal care products, in violation of the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”). The unlawfully and deceptively represented products are sold through various channels, including, but not limited to, direct-to-consumer sales on the Defendant’s website, third-party platforms such as Amazon.com, and third-party merchants operating brick-and-mortar stores, as well as websites, including, but not limited to, Albertsons, Target and elsewhere. The Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences, and as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by her attorneys. Specifically, Defendant represents that its products are made using certain ingredients and proprietary processes that, in reality, are not used in--or in the production of--the products. Defendant goes so far as to claim that it has “patented” these processes, further misleading consumers and retailers alike. Additionally, Defendant prominently advertises certain ingredients on the Principal Display Panel (“PDP”) of specific products, despite those ingredients being entirely absent from the actual formulation. For instance, the product purchased by Plaintiff claims to contain “Sweet Almond Milk,” when in fact itcontains no sweet almond milk whatsoever. The Defendant’s conduct of labeling, marketing and selling deceptively labeled products bearing the aforementioned misrepresentations violates: the CLRA, the UCL, the FAL, and constitutes breach of express warranty; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and intentional misrepresentation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Products from the Defendant. The Defendant has rapidly grown into one of the leading personal care companies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com RED LOBSTER RESTAURANTS: Baker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Lobster Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Winston Baker, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Red Lobster Restaurants LLC, Case No. 25STCV14064 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC -- https://www.redlobster.com/ -- is an American casual dining restaurant chain headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[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 REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Allowed Leave to File Class Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS Communications, L.L.C., et al., v. Republic Services, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359 (E.D. Mo., Filed March 22, 2021), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order granting CIS'S motion for leave to file under seal regarding reply in support of motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. CIS Communications is a wireless telecommunications infrastructure company.[CC] RIP CURL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. RIP CURL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04080 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive, https://www.ripcurl.com/us/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 11, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Omega 4/3 Back Zip Fullsuit Wetsuit Black from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff 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; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase an Omega 4/3 Back Zip Fullsuit Wetsuit Black, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: apparel, swimwear, & accessories and accompanying products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase an Omega 4/3 Back Zip Fullsuit Wetsuit Black. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase an Omega 4/3 Back Zip Fullsuit Wetsuit Black but 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 the Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Rip Curl online retail store, as well as the Rip Curl interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Talbit Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Specialties, Inc. The case is styled as Theresa Talbit, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Scientific Specialties, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006695 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Scientific Specialties, Inc. -- https://www.ssibio.com/ -- is a leading innovator in Life Science, offering Pipette Tips, PCR, Screw Microtubes, Centrifuge Tubes, and Cryogenic Tubes, HTS Products, and Tube Racks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimbery A. Cole, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: kimcole0813@gmail.com SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces Suit Over Unsafe Pressure Cookers ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges SharkNinja Operating, LLC failed to warn consumers that more than 1.8 million Ninja Foodi OP300-series multi-function pressure cookers recalled this month may pose a burn risk. The 27-page SharkNinja lawsuit contends that although the appliance manufacturer touts the pressure cookers as safe, high-quality products, the cookers' lids can be opened during use, causing the hot contents to escape and potentially burn consumers. The company announced a recall of roughly 1,846,400 Ninja Foodi multi-function pressure cookers on May 1, 2025, including those bearing model numbers OP300, OP301, OP301A, OP302, OP302BRN, OP302HCN, OP302HAQ, OP302HW, OP302HB, OP305, OP305CO and OP350CO. According to the recall announcement, SharkNinja has received more than 100 reports of burn injuries, with approximately half being second- or third-degree burns to the face or body. More than 20 lawsuits have been filed as of the May 1 recall announcement, the class action suit says. Per the complaint, the pressure cookers at issue were sold between January 2019 and March 2025 for around $200 at Walmart, Costco, Sam's Club and Target, and on Amazon.com and NinjaKitchen.com. Consumers such as the plaintiff, a California resident, purchased the products with the reasonable belief that they were appropriately designed, free from defects, and safe for their intended purpose, the filing contends. In truth, however, buyers unknowingly received "dangerous, inoperable, and worthless" pressure cookers, the suit alleges. Indeed, the plaintiff claims he would not have bought the pressure cooker had he known it was defective. The class action lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who purchased a recalled SharkNinja pressure cooker between January 2019 and March 2025. The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission urges consumers to immediately stop using the Ninja Foodi's pressure-cooking function and contact SharkNinja for a free replacement lid. The CPSC added that consumers can continue to use the product's air frying function. [GN] SILVERGATE BANK: Parties Must File Supplemental Settlement Brief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bhatia v. Silvergate Bank et al., (RE: SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-01406-RBM-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order directing the Parties to file supplemental briefing on motion for preliminary approval. 1. The Parties' request for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement without a proposed notice plan and without a proposed allocation plan. 2. The Parties' request to postpone their notice obligations under CAFA. 3. To the extent possible, any coordination efforts the Parties intend to pursue with counsel for the related actions, any anticipated effect the pending settlements in such related action may have on the instant proposed settlement, or any additional details that may help the Court preliminarily assess whether it will be likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class under Rule 23. 4. Any estimates of the proposed class size, any differences among the proposed class members' claims or lack thereof, or any anticipated or proposed exclusions to the settlement class. If such estimates are not possible, the Parties should explain any plans for these determinations. The Court entered an order directing the Parties to file a supplemental brief, jointly or separately, consistent with the Order on or before May 29, 2025. Silvergate Bank was a California bank founded in 1988. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=328z4B at no extra charge.[CC] SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Klassen Due August 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the joint motion to modify scheduling order by extending expert discovery and class certification 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. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sll9n0 at no extra charge.[CC] SOUNDHOUND AI: Continues to Defend Liles Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Soundhound AI 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 Liles class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 28, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Liles v. SoundHound AI, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02915-RFL. The complaint names as defendants the Company, its CEO Keyvan Mohajer, and its CFO Nitesh Sharan. The complaint asserts, among other things, claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SoundHound securities between May 10, 2024 and March 3, 2025, both dates inclusive. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims and believes the complaint lacks merit. SoundHound provides an independent voice artificial intelligence platform that purportedly enables businesses across industries to deliver high-quality conversational experiences to their customers. The Company has identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. [BN] SOUTHERN TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Crane Operators OT, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY LAMONTAGNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, LLC AND SOUTHERN LIFTING AND HOISTING, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00531 (E.D. Tex., May 15, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying their crane operators for all overtime worked, and by misclassifying their field safety technicians as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and not paying them for any overtime hours worked. Accordingly, the Defendants refused to pay her for all the overtime she worked as a crane operator. The Plaintiff then became a salaried field safety coordinator, and Defendants refused to pay her for any of the overtime hours she worked. The Plaintiffs are Defendants' current and former crane operators and field safety coordinators who were either not paid all overtime they were due (crane operators) or were not paid any of the overtime they were due (field safety coordinators). The Plaintiff initially worked for Defendants as an hourly crane operator. The Defendants both provide lifting, logistics, and hauling services across multiple states for industries including renewable energy, oil and gas, civil construction, and HVAC/air handling, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118 Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (512) 799-2048 E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Cert Bid in Lanclos Due July 10 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LANCLOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 1:25-cv-00353-RMR-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Timothy P. O'Hara entered a scheduling order as follows: Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings: June 27, 2025. Discovery Cutoff: May 8, 2026. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Deadline: July 10, 2026. Daubert Motion Deadline: Aug. 10, 2026 Dispositive Motions Notice Deadline: May 18, 2026 A Status Conference is set for Aug. 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, mandatory penalties under C.R.S. section 8-4-109(3)(b)(I), additional penalties under C.R.S. section 8-4- 109(3)(b)(II), and attorneys' fees and costs due to him and the similarly situated employees. Southwest is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Hh1WI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 The Defendant is represented by: Kimberly Cheeseman, Esq. Pete Curran, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010 SPORN COMPANY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Steven Adler, v. THE SPORN COMPANY INC. and, BIXLER'S INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00617-cr (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss amended complaint. Mr. Adler alleges that between 2016 and 2017 2020, TSC manufactured more than $16 million worth of jewelry at factories it owned in Montreal, Canada and importer the jewelry to be sold in the United States through Bixler's licensed brands. TSC is in the jewelry business. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tUi0qy at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Class Settlement in Mora Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN DANIELLE MORA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HIDAY & RICKE, P.A., JEFF RICKE, an individual, and ROBERT HIDAY, an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00372-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and setting final approval hearing for Aug. 26, 2025. The "Settlement Class" is the group of people comprised of the four hundred and forty-one (441) persons identified as a result of the Hiday & Ricke Defendants' search of their records. As such, each "Settlement Class Member" is defined as any person who meets the following criteria: (1) The person was a judgment debtor of State Farm between April 7, 2017 and June 11, 2024 pursuant to a judgment obtained by State Farm against that person; (2) The State Farm Judgment against that person arose from an automobile accident with a State Farm insured; (3) At the time of the accident giving rise to the State Farm Judgment, the person maintained at least the minimum required insurance pursuant to Fla. Stat. section 324.021(7) (2017 to date). That minimum insurance is: (a) In the amount of $10,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, one person in any one crash; (b) Subject to such limits for one person, in the amount of $20,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of, two or more persons in any one crash; (c) In the amount of $10,000 because of injury to, or destruction of, property of others in any one crash; and (d) With respect to commercial motor vehicles and nonpublic sector buses, in the amounts specified in §§ 627.7415 and 627.742, respectively. The person (or their automobile insurer) tendered payment to State Farm; (5) The person's driver's license was suspended between April 7, 2017 and June 11, 2024 pursuant to a request by Hiday & Ricke based on the person’s failure to satisfy the State Farm Judgment; and (6) The person's license was not suspended for any reason other than the Hiday & Ricke request based on the person’s failure to satisfy the State Farm Judgment. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) any in-house or outside counsel for the Defendants and the immediate family members of such persons; (2) employees of the Defendants; (3) any members of the judiciary assigned to the Actions and their staff; and (4) the Parties’ counsel in the Actions. The foregoing defined Settlement Class is deemed to be ascertainable and adequately defined. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing, not sooner than ninety (90) days after entry of this Order, on August 26, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. in the Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D. State is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ca9pLb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 - and - Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. Mary Catherine Roper, Esq. LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C. 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TASKUS INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Blackstone ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASK), relating to the proposed merger with an affiliate of Blackstone. Under the terms of the agreement, the affiliate will acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Class A common stock they do not already own for $16.50 per share. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/taskus-inc-task/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] TESORO REFINING: Class Settlement in McGhee Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MCGHEE and VICTOR HAZLETT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY LLC; ANDEAVOR; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS LP; MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-05999-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: For purposes of settlement only: (a) the law firm of Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP is appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (b) Plaintiffs Derek L. McGhee and Victor Hazlett are appointed Class Representatives. For purposes of settlement only and for purposes of disseminating Class Notice, and without prejudice to Defendants’ right to contest class certification if the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved, the Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement: "All current and former unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendants at the Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and Martinez chemical plant from Aug. 17, 2014, to July 12, 2024 (the "Settlement Class")." The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on Aug. 22, 2025. Tesoro refines and markets petroleum products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prC25u at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Appointment of Interim Lead Class Counsel Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re: Tiktok, Inc., Minor Privacy Litigation, Case No. 2:25-ml-03144-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on May 29, 2025: -- appointing Steven L. Bloch of Silver Golub & Teitell and Eric Kafka of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll as Interim Class Counsel in In re TikTok Inc. Minor Privacy Litigation, and all other actions consolidated into it, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The firms are prepared to commit the resources necessary to prosecute this case to successful conclusion. In fact, Cohen Milstein and Silver Golub are regularly involved in cases requiring seven-figure sums to fund the litigation and are prepared to do the same here. The firms are well established, reputable, and have demonstrated that they are capable of handling the challenges of this litigation and committing the necessary resources to represent the proposed Classes. First-Filed Counsel will establish a litigation fund to immediately support the litigation effort and will devote the resources necessary to litigate this case successfully. On Nov. 21, 2024, Mr. Bloch and Mr. Kafka filed a motion with Judge Wright to be appointed as Co-Lead Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). On April 28, 2025, the Court set a schedule for all motions relating to the leadership structure. TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for creating and sharing short mobile videos. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BpEB5B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Golub, Esq. Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Jennifer Sclar, Esq. John Seredynski, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com - and - Eric Kafka, Esq. Karina Puttieva, Esq. Jenna Waldman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com jwaldman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Patrick Carey, Esq. Mark Todzo, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 E-mail: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com TJX COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Spy Pixel Privacy Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Melanie A. Conroy and Samih Eloubeidi of Pierce Atwood LLP, writing for The National Law Review, report that on January 31, 2025, in Campos v. TJX Companies, Inc., No. 24-cv-11067, the District of Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a class action due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. The court concluded that the named plaintiff's claims regarding the intrusion of her privacy by "spy pixels" could not be successful because there was no injury in fact. TJX Pixel Software and Campos' Privacy Claims Arlette Campos filed a putative class action against defendant TJX Companies ("TJX") alleging that it intruded upon her privacy through promotional emails it sent to her. Campos claimed that TJX had embedded pixel software in its promotional emails, which collect information about the email recipient, including when the email is opened and read, the recipient's location, how long the recipient spends reading the email, and the email server the recipient uses. Although Campos had provided TJX with her email and subscribed to their email list, she claimed that TJX collected her private information without her consent. TJX Challenges Whether Campos Met Article III Standing Requirements TJX filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that Campos lacked standing. Article III of the Constitution requires that litigants have standing to sue. Whether a litigant has standing to sue is an inquiry of three elements: injury in fact, traceability, and redressability. TJX challenged Campos' standing on the basis that she did not suffer an injury in fact. To sufficiently plead an injury in fact, a plaintiff must allege a concrete harm. Quoting from TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the court highlighted that "traditional tangible harms, such as physical and monetary harms, are obvious[ly] concrete." However, based on the holding in TransUnion, the court made clear that "[i]ntangible harms can also be concrete . . . such as reputational harms, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion." Thus, even though Campos did not have a traditional, tangible harm, this did not necessarily preclude a finding of concrete harm. Campos pointed to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to argue that she was injured. The Restatement Second of Torts defines intrusion upon seclusion as the intentional intrusion "upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns." For this claim to be actionable, the intrusion must be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," and the matter intruded upon must be deeply private, personal, and confidential. Based on this, the court rejected the argument that the emails would fall within the ambit of deeply personal and private information contemplated by the tort because Campos provided her email address to TJX (which the court observed as "certainly not private"), she had consented to receive promotional emails, there was "nothing particularly private about the email's subject or other content," and TJX authored the contents of the emails, meaning they would have been known "with or without the pixels." Additionally, although the court noted that opening private mail is an example of an intrusion mentioned in the Restatement, because TJX did not peer into Campos' inbox beyond the emails it authored, there was no intrusion here. Even for other sensitive information that the pixels collected, such as whether, when, where, and for how long Campos read the emails, the court rejected Campos' argument that this was private and personal information meant to be protected by the tort. The court found no precedent that "reading habits" for content authored by the defendant are "the type of private, personal information that the tort was aimed at protecting under the common law." The court was troubled by allegations that the pixel software tracked whether the email was forwarded, which it deemed "closest to tracking ‘unrelated personal messages,'" but faulted the absence of any allegation that "pixels could track to whom the email was forwarded or the content of that forwarded message." Therefore, the court held that Campos failed to adequately plead this claim, and thus, failed to establish that she was injured. Campos also argued that use of pixel technology is similar to cases arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), which prohibits unsolicited marketing calls and faxes, and the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), which prohibits the sharing of video rental records. The court, however, rejected these analogies. In TCPA cases, standing has been found where recipients did not consent to being contacted. In this case, Campos willingly subscribed to receive emails from TJX, opened and read them, and took no steps to unsubscribe. Based on this, the court held that the TCPA was inapplicable, and Campos could not meet the standing requirement by relying upon it. Similarly, the VPPA solely contemplates the disclosure of video rental and sale records, and because Campos did not allege any such disclosure, the court held that no harm occurred that could justify applying the VPPA and it thereby could not confer standing, either. Based on Campos' inability to establish standing, the court granted the motion to dismiss. Fast Forward: Article III Standing and Class Certification In this latest class action, the named plaintiff was unable to meet Article III's standing requirement. However, even if Campos had, she would have had to overcome another hurdle: establishing whether the vast majority of absent class members also had standing. The Supreme Court's holding in TransUnion stands for the proposition that every member of a class, including absent members, must establish a concrete injury under Article III to be awarded individual damages. The Supreme Court did not, however, address the issue of class certification where the class contains absent members who lack Article III standing. The Supreme Court is poised to answer this question in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, which it granted certiorari for in January 2025. Courts that have answered this question have done so differently, leading to a three-way split between circuits. The D.C. Circuit and First Circuit permit certification of a class only if the number of uninjured members is de minimis. The Ninth Circuit permits certification even if the class includes more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members. The Eighth and Second Circuits have taken the strictest approach, rejecting certification if any members are uninjured. Given that venue may be outcome determinative in this regard, until the Supreme Court addresses this question, defendants should scrutinize potential standing deficiencies for both class representatives and absent class members as well. The Supreme Court heard argument in Lab Corp on April 29, 2025, and should soon issue a decision that may provide important clarity to class action litigants on this question of standing. [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Seeks to Certify Two Classes of Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grigg v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Case No. 4:21-cv-03124-JFB (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes of current and former hearing-impaired Union Pacific employees so that they may challenge Union Pacific's uniform policy disfavoring workers with hearing loss. Union is a publicly traded railroad holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ebgo1A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Seeks to Certify Classes of Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Waldschmidt v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Case No. 8:22-cv-00210-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two classes of current and former hearing-impaired Union Pacific employees so that they may challenge Union Pacific's uniform policy disfavoring workers with hearing loss. Union is a publicly traded railroad holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hCFbgM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. Colin R. Reeves, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com colin@apollo-law.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW LLC 525 Junction Rd, Ste 6500 Madison, WI 53717 Telephone: (612) 293-5249 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law mthomson@caseyjones.law UNITED STATES: Appeals Stay of Agency Action Order to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Stay of Agency Action in the lawsuit entitled Immigrant Defenders Law Center, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-09893-JGB-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This is a case about the rights of asylum seekers who were subjected to the Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols. On October 28, 2020, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Jewish Family Service of San Diego, and twenty individuals who were subjected to the protocols filed a putative class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed that the protocols' "remain in Mexico" policy stranded asylum seekers in towns on the Mexico side of the southern U.S. border, where they were subjected to dangerous conditions and deprived of basic human needs. The protocols also functionally prevented asylum seekers from accessing legal counsel while they awaited their immigration hearings, and those hearings had been suspended indefinitely several months prior to the initiation of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the protocols violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. They sought injunctive relief ordering the defendants to halt enforcement of the protocols, facilitate legal representation for asylum seekers, and return the plaintiffs to the United States or provide for their basic human needs in Mexico. They also sought attorneys' fees and costs. On Feb. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for a Stay of Agency Action, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted on Apr. 15, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Immigrant Defenders Law Center, et al. v. Noem, et al., Case No. 25-2581, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Injunction Opening Brief was due on May 20, 2025; and -- Appellee's Injunction Answering Brief is due on June 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees IMMIGRANT DEFENDERS LAW CENTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew T. Heartney, Esq. Daniel Shimell, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 777 South Figueroa, Street 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and – Anne Dutton, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGE STUDIES 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 - and – Jordan Elizabeth Cunnings, Esq. Kelsey Lynn Provo, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 - and – Melissa E. Crow, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES 1121 14th Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 - and – Sirine Shebaya, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT (NIPNLG) 1200 18th Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 - and – Stephen William Manning, Esq. IMMIGRANT LAW GROUP, PC P.O. Box 40103 Portland, OR 97240 - and – Tess Margaret Hellgren, Esq. INNOVATION LAW LAB 333 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 - and – Victoria Neilson, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road, NW Suite 175 Washington, DC 20009 Defendants-Appellants KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al. are represented by: Jason K. Axe, Esq. Christina Alejandra Marquez, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 - and – Alanna Thanh Duong, Esq. Cara Elizabeth Alsterberg, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 VERISOURCE SERVICES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, White Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERISOURCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-02068 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Verisource Services, Inc. an employee benefits data administrative services company headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 268-3579 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com VISION PATH: Africa Allowed to File 4th Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wesley Africa v. Vision Path, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04570-GW-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered a tentative ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint. Though Plaintiff has arguably unduly delayed the filing of its 4AC, Defendant will not be prejudiced by this late filing, and the Court therefore finds it permissible. The Court would however caution Plaintiff that this will be the final amendment permitted. On April 28, 2023, the Plaintiff brought a putative class action against the Defendants, in Ventura County Superior Court, asserting twelve causes of action relating to unfair competition and deceptive practices, strict products liability, negligence, and fraud. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike on Aug. 29, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Vision offers direct-to-consumer contact lenses and eye glasses. A copy of the Court's ruling dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CrpkVJ at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Abarca ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; ALFREDO ALESNAJR., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; DAVID CAGLE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; STEPHEN L. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; FRANK EADS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; and KENNETH J. SURMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., DOES 1- 100, inclusive; and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:14CV319 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. The Court declines to reconsider its Order. First, not only did it reject Defendants' arguments in the March 28, 2025, Order, it has also already rejected many of the same or similar arguments on prior occasions in this case. The Defendants are not entitled to a third bite at the apple. Second, the Defendants' arguments alleging erroneous factual findings or misstatements of the evidence amount to little more than quibbling over wording or faulting the Court for focusing its analysis where the parties focused their briefing rather than anticipating other arguments. Importantly, none of Defendants' claims, even if accepted, would alter the Court’s ultimate conclusions. These post-hoc arguments therefore provide no basis for reconsidering the Court's legal rulings. Lastly, there is no basis for interlocutory appeal. On March 28, 2025, the Court issued an Order ruling on several motions from both sides of this class-action lawsuit. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the class; denied both parties’ motions to strike declarations but granted Plaintiffs leave to surreply; and denied in part and granted in part both sides’ motions for summary judgment on various liability issues. Werner is a trucking company specializing in freight shipping and logistics management. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pZ7F8D at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Smith Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:15CV287 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. The Court declines to reconsider its Order. First, not only did it reject Defendants' arguments in the March 28, 2025, Order, it has also already rejected many of the same or similar arguments on prior occasions in this case. The Defendants are not entitled to a third bite at the apple. Second, the Defendants' arguments alleging erroneous factual findings or misstatements of the evidence amount to little more than quibbling over wording or faulting the Court for focusing its analysis where the parties focused their briefing rather than anticipating other arguments. Importantly, none of Defendants' claims, even if accepted, would alter the Court’s ultimate conclusions. These post-hoc arguments therefore provide no basis for reconsidering the Court's legal rulings. Lastly, there is no basis for interlocutory appeal. On March 28, 2025, the Court issued an Order ruling on several motions from both sides of this class-action lawsuit. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the class; denied both parties’ motions to strike declarations but granted Plaintiffs leave to surreply; and denied in part and granted in part both sides’ motions for summary judgment on various liability issues. Werner is a trucking company specializing in freight shipping and logistics management. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkz2Kf at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed in Vester Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN VESTER and JOEL MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00145-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), he Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration. The Court declines to reconsider its Order. First, not only did it reject Defendants' arguments in the March 28, 2025, Order, it has also already rejected many of the same or similar arguments on prior occasions in this case. The Defendants are not entitled to a third bite at the apple. Second, the Defendants' arguments alleging erroneous factual findings or misstatements of the evidence amount to little more than quibbling over wording or faulting the Court for focusing its analysis where the parties focused their briefing rather than anticipating other arguments. Importantly, none of Defendants' claims, even if accepted, would alter the Court’s ultimate conclusions. These post-hoc arguments therefore provide no basis for reconsidering the Court's legal rulings. Lastly, there is no basis for interlocutory appeal. On March 28, 2025, the Court issued an Order ruling on several motions from both sides of this class-action lawsuit. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the class; denied both parties’ motions to strike declarations but granted Plaintiffs leave to surreply; and denied in part and granted in part both sides’ motions for summary judgment on various liability issues. Werner is a trucking company specializing in freight shipping and logistics management. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4bFDCf at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN AVENUE: Burress Sues Over Credit Card Misrepresentations ---------------------------------------------------------------- TANISHA BURRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN AVENUE NISSAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05106 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a class action alleging that Defendant systematically made misrepresentations on credit applications for its customers submitted to a creditor, Santander Consumer USA, knowing that these customers would not have qualified for such loans without the misrepresentations. Western Avenue Nissan, Inc. is a car dealership based in Chicago, IL, specializing in the sale of new and used Nissan vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin S. McIntosh, Esq. SWMW LAW, LLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 480-5180 Facsimile: (314) 932-1566 Email: ben.mcintosh@swmwlaw.com YALE NEW: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ortiz Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- ERICA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of her minor children, M.F.1, M.F.2, M.F.3, G.O.S., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP., Case No. 3:25-cv-00784 (D. Conn., May 14, 2025) stems from the Defendant's failure to secure the sensitive personal information of their current and former patients for whom the Defendant performed services. It has been reported that on March 8, 2025 (the "Data Breach"), cybercriminals accessed Defendant's network and obtained demographic information such as name, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, race or ethnicity, social security number, patient type, and/or medical record number. As a result of the Data Breach, sensitive and protected health information, and personal identifiable information, including name, date of birth, address, telephone number, email address, race or ethnicity, Social Security number, patient type, and/or medical record number, was accessed and copied by an unauthorized third party. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Private Information provided by and belonging to their patients, and for allowing the Data Breach to occur. The Defendant is well aware of the need to protect the privacy of its patients and use security measures to protect their Private information from unauthorized disclosure. And as a sophisticated entity that maintains private and sensitive information, Defendant further understood the importance of safeguarding Private Information. The Defendant owed a non-delegable care of duty to protect the Private Information of its client's patients. Plaintiff Ortiz, is a citizen of Connecticut, residing in New Haven County. She takes care to protecting her Confidential Information from disclosure. Faced with the risk of the unauthorized disclosure of her Confidential Information, she is now forced to monitor her financial accounts for signs of fraud and identity theft and devote valuable time and resources to doing so. The Defendant is a healthcare provider and Connecticut corporation based in New Haven, Connecticut. The company owns and/or operates 217 different locations and employs over 12,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Reilly, Esq. CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP 364 Franklin Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 Telephone: 860-296-3457 Facsimile: 860-296-3457 E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 W Broadway No. 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sward@barrack.com - and - Andrew Heo, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 E-mail: aheo@barrack.com YVES SAINT LAURENT: Class Settlement in Sabzerou Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TITANIA SABZEROU, et al., v. YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01355-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order as follows: (1) conditionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes only, (2) preliminarily approving the class action and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Settlement, (3) naming Titania Sabzerou as Class Representative, (4) naming Michael Robinson and Orion Robinson as Class Counsel, (5) approving Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions as Settlement Administrator, and (6) approving the form and method of Class Notice, subject to the discussed changes. Furthermore, the Court entered an order: -- directing the parties to file a revised version of the Class Notice within 7 days of the Order; -- setting a final fairness hearing for Oct. 24, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.; and -- directing the Plaintiff to file her motion for final approval no later than Sept. 26, 2025. The Settlement Class includes "All current and former nonexempt employees of [YSL] employed during the Class Period who did not sign an arbitration agreement or an individual release of claims." The Class Period begins on April 27, 2019, and ends on the date on which the Court preliminary approves the Settlement." The Settlement defines "PAGA Aggrieved Employees" as "All current and former nonexempt employees of [YSL] employed during the PAGA Period." The PAGA Periodbegins on April 27, 2022, and ends on the date on which the Court preliminary approves the Settlement." The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $250,000. The gross settlement amount will be allocated as follows: -- $50,000 Allocated to PAGA penalties, with $37,500 being paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and $12,500 remaining for pro rata distribution to the PAGA Aggrieved Employees; -- Up to $10,000 allocated to Plaintiff as an enhancement for serving as Class Representative; -- Up to $6,500 allocated to settlement administration costs; -- Up to one-third of the gross settlement amount, or $83,333.33, allocated to attorneys’ fees for Class Counsel; and -- An amount approved by the Court for documented costs to Class Counsel. The remaining sum of approximately $84,332.14 will comprise the net settlement fund, to be distributed to Class Members. YSL employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee at its Costa Mesa store from April 28, 2019 until Feb. 25, 2022. YSL is a French luxury fashion house. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AX7eGA at no extra charge.[CC] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities 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 securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 4, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, brought on behalf of purchasers of Company common stock between November 10, 2020, and August 5, 2024, alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements related to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including in respect of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's performance, in violation of §10(b) and §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and costs and expenses. 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 ***