250528.mbx

250528.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 106 Headlines ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: July 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ALLIED COMMUNITY: Kolonziaa Appeals Summary Judgment to 2nd Circuit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denies Theodore's Bid to Certify Appeal BAIRD MANDALAS: Court Affirms Ruling in Hernandez, et al. Suit BRIDGE IT: Kelly's Bid to Remand to Court of Common Pleas Granted CHARLES RIVER: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in 1st Cir. CMS-NY/PA LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Smalt Due Feb. 27, 2026 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids COMPUTER HAUS: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Jahagirdar FLSA Suit CORNERSTONE BUILDING: $648K in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Ramirez Suit CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Has Final Nod COX AUTOMOTIVE: Class & PAGA Settlement in Touch Suit Has Final OK CREDIT SUISSE: Court Denies Filing of 3rd Amended Securities Suit CURRENEX INC: Class Certification Bid in Edmar Modified to Nov. 18 DENSO INT'L: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of England, et al. ERISA Su DIDI GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Must Submit Sur-Sur-Reply by June 6 DNC TRAVEL: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert by Oct. 10 DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in D.B.U., et al. Lawsuit DONALD J. TRUMP: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in G.F.F. Lawsuit DONALD TRUMP: Court Decertifies Class in A.S.R. Lawsuit DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Reconsideration of May 9 Denial Order EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 6 ETOH MONITORING: 5th Circuit Affirms Ruling in Meade, et al. Suit EVOLVE BANK: Settlements in Fatnani, et al. Suit Get Final Court OK EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over Disclosures FUBOTV INC: Beasley Video Privacy Row Voluntarily Dismissed GENERAC POWER: Seeks Denial of Juliano's Class Certification Bid GENTNER DRUMMOND: Padres Unidos Seeks Class Certification GLOCK INC: Court Adopts Johnson's Proposed Forms of Class Notice GOODRX HOLDINGS: June 12 Hearing to OK $25MM Deal in NCDA Suit GOODRX HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice GORSUCH LTD: District of Utah Dismisses Pilkington Class Suit GREYSTAR REAL: Padilla Consumer Suit Reassigned to District Judge GROCERY OUTLET: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. H & M: Ventura Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit HAL HAYS CONSTRUCTION: Selden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Circuit HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Wins Bid to Bifurcate in O'Hailpin, et al. Suit HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Seal Docs in Story, et al. Suit INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Phoenix Can Distribute Residual Funds INTERTAPE POLYMER: $2.5MM Settlement in Evans Suit Has Final Nod JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing in Carr KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Oie's Bid for Settlement Approval Due on June 4 KRIGER: Third Distribution of Settlement Checks OK'd in Almada Suit L'OREAL USA: Court to Consolidate Six Related Cases LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: American Acceptance Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir LG ELECTRONICS: Abrego Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice LOEWS CORPORATION: Faces Portillo Antitrust Suit in WA Court LOEWS CORPORATION: Faces Segal Antitrust Suit in Washington Court LOOK BOTH WAYS: Rashley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LOUD AUDIO: Beven Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice MASIMO AMERICAS: Pleasants Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII MDL 3035: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Retirement Suit MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Bellows Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Fed. Securities Class Suit Pending in Alabama MERRILL LYNCH: July 11 Stock Loan Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set MODIVCARE INC: All Metro Continues to Defend Caregivers' Class Suit MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Kalera Securities Class Suit MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Lowe Suit Removed to S.D. New York MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court MSC SHIP: Bid to Exclude Crosson's Testimony in Brown Partly OK'd MURPHY REHAB: Filing for Conditional Certification Due August 15 NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY NATIONAL GRID: Bid for Bench Trial Tossed in Nightingale Suit NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Putney Files Suit in E.D. Missouri NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Wilson Files Suit in Ga. Ct. NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Labor Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Ewing Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Jackson Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Russ Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Wade Suit PERRIGO CO: June 2025 Hearing on Bid to Certify Canadian Suit PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Settlement in Braun Suit Gets Final Court OK PLATINUM NINE: Miller Suit Removed to W.D. Washington POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Irvington Public Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. PREMIERFIRST HOME: Loses Bid to Extend Settlement Payment Schedule PRIME ASCOT: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Leaser Suit Granted PRIMEX FARMS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Wins Bid for Class Certification QUEENS BOROUGH: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge RESULTS CUSTOMER: Fact Discovery in Warren Suit Due August 15 RESULTS CUSTOMER: Parties Seek More Time to Pursue Mediation ROBERT HALF: Class Counsel Awarded $4.29MM in Attorney's Fees SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Tossed SARATOGA HARNESS RACING: Payne Files Suit in N.D. New York SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Docs in Koonce SEA LIMITED: $46-Mil. Class Settlement to be Heard on July 1 SETTE-WYNWOOD: Alonzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SIRIUS XM: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Surreply SMARTERSWIPE INC: Arrhimi Suit Removed to E.D. California SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SUNCOAST CREDIT: Casanova Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Info SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: District of Utah Dismisses Arnstein Class Suit SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES: Alessi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Amended to Nov. 25 TARGET CORPORATION: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TARGET CORPORATION: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri TELADOC HEALTH: Leadersel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. TETRA TECH: $600K Class Settlement in Brown Gets Initial Nod TIA INC: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Class Cert Stay Pending Arbitration Ruling TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Stay Class Cert & Bifurcate Discovery TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Stay Class Certification in Vriens TSYS MERCHANT: S.B.C.W. Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TULPEHOCKEN SPRING: Skrip Seeks Conditional Status of Collective TWITTER INC: Filing fort Class Cert Bid in Carolina Due Sept. 5 U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: N.D. California Dismisses Eberhardt Suit UNITED SERVICES: Davidson's Bid for Class Certification Tossed UNITED SITE: Garcia Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY UNITED STATES: Accord in Kidd v. Noem & ICE Has Prelim. Approval UNITED STATES: Iliya v. USMS Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute VESYNC CORPORATION: Must Oppose Chen Class Cert Bid by June 27 WATA INC: Knight Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice WYNDHAM VACATION: Lamar Suit Removed to N.D. California [^] eDiscovery Firms Supporting Class Action Litigation ********* ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: July 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., STEPHEN R. DAVIS, and SRDJAN (SERGE) R. STANKOVIC, Defendants. No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO ACQUIRED THE COMMON SHARES OF ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2019, THROUGH APRIL 4, 2021. Please be advised that your rights may be affected by a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California if you acquired common shares of Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. during the period from September 9, 2019, through April 4, 2021. A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to a Court Order dated March 11, 2024, a class has been certified in a class action entitled City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21CV00762, pending before Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Action is brought on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired Acadia common stock during the period from September 9, 2019, through April 4, 2021, and asserts claims under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against (1) Acadia; (2) Stephen R. Davis; and (3) Ana Stankovic. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, allege that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions concerning Acadia's supplemental New Drug Application ("sNDA") to expand the approved treatment indication for Acadia's flagship drug, pimavanserin. Defendants deny all of these allegations, deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing, and deny that they have any liability or violated the Exchange Act. The Court has decided that the Action should proceed as a class action on behalf of a Class that (subject to certain exclusions) consists of "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Acadia common stock during the period from September 9, 2019, through April 4, 2021 (inclusive), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Class are (i) each Defendant in the Action; (ii) the past and current officers and directors of Acadia; (iii) the immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, parents, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and assigns of any excluded person or entity; and (iv) any entity in which any excluded person(s) have or had a majority ownership interest, or that is or was controlled by any excluded person or entity. If you are a member of the Class, your rights may be affected by this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, you may obtain copies by writing to the Notice Administrator at Acadia Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173110, Milwaukee, WI 53217, or by downloading this information at www.AcadiaSecuritiesLitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, c/o Jacob Lieberman, 156 South Main Street, Colchester, CT 06415, tel. (800) 404-7770. You have the right to request exclusion (opt out) from the Class. If you do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by past and any future rulings of the Court on the claims asserted against the Defendants, even if there is no recovery. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY JULY 18, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO DO NOT VALIDLY REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS, THAT THE COURT HAS MADE OR WILL MAKE IN THIS ACTION, EVEN IF THERE IS NO RECOVERY. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: April 15, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLIED COMMUNITY: Kolonziaa Appeals Summary Judgment to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC KOLONZIAA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Isaac Kolonziaa, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allied Community Resources, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-230, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. On May 1, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Stefan R. Underhill granted on Mar. 31, 2025. The Court held that the Plaintiffs have not shown sufficient evidence that Allied Resources was their employer. The appellate case is entitled Kolonziaa v. Allied Community Resources, Inc., Case No. 25-1034, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ISAAC KOLONZIAA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Defendants-Appellees ALLIED COMMUNITY RESOURCES, INC., et al. are represented by: Tanya Feliciano DeMattia, Esq. CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Health & Education Department 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Denies Theodore's Bid to Certify Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for certificate of appealability in the lawsuit entitled DIANA THEODORE, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03710-AMO (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Diana Theodore brings this putative class action against Defendant American Express National Bank alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. On April 4, 2024, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. The Plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. While the case was pending before the court of appeals, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Smith v. Spizzirri, holding "[w]hen a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding." In light of Smith, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the limited purpose of permitting the Court to issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The Court then indicated it would stay the action pending arbitration rather than dismiss without prejudice based on Smith. Thereafter, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed at the Ninth Circuit, and the Court issued an amended order staying the case. Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). After considering the parties' submissions, and determining the matter was suitable for resolution without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court now denies the Plaintiff's motion. On Sept. 10, 2024, the Court issued an amended order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and staying the case. The lone issue before the Court was whether Plaintiff Theodore agreed to arbitrate her claims. In resolving that issue, the Court analyzed the text of the 2018 cardholder agreement under Utah law. Though two Claims Resolution provisions were present in the agreement, Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that the clear text confirmed the "Claims Resolution for Covered Borrowers" provision applied only to members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. Therefore, the remaining "Claims Resolution" provision applied to the Plaintiff. A sensible reading of the agreement, giving effect to all provisions, required the Court to hold the Plaintiff's claims were subject to arbitration. The Plaintiff now argues for interlocutory appeal of the September 10 Order because it satisfies all three prongs of Section 1292(b); namely, it presents "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Judge Martinez-Olguin explains that these three statutory requirements are conjunctive, meaning absence of any one precludes interlocutory appeal. So, the Court addresses only whether the September 10 Order presents "substantial ground for difference of opinion," as the matter may be disposed of on that question alone. The Court concludes there is no substantial ground for differing interpretations of the 2018 cardholder agreement. The Plaintiff argues, among other things, that jurists might disagree as to which principle of Utah contract law should direct the outcome of the September 10 Order. The Court rejected that interpretation and read the agreement so that all provisions operated in harmony. The Court adds, among other things, that the cases upon which the Plaintiff relies are distinguishable. For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for certificate of appealability. This Order disposes of Docket No. 61. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3e5whhjr from PacerMonitor.com. BAIRD MANDALAS: Court Affirms Ruling in Hernandez, et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled as TIFFANY HERNANDEZ and JOSE HERNANDEZ-ALVAREZ, Individually and as guardian ad litem for their child, L.H., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO, LLC; CHASE T. BROCKSTEDT; PHILIP C. FEDERICO; BRENT CERYES; STEPHEN A. SPENCE; SCHOCHOR, STATON, GOLDBERG, AND CARDEA, P.A., Defendants Below, Appellees, No. 204, 2024 (Del.), Justices Karen L. Valihura, Abigail M. LeGrow and N. Christopher Griffiths of the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware that the finding in the underlying action that class representation was adequate precludes plaintiffs from now asserting a legal malpractice claim against defendants. The Superior Court first held that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from pursuing their legal malpractice claim against defendants because, among other elements of collateral estoppel, the claims administrator's decision in the underlying class action was a final adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction as the claims process was an approved process set up by the court in the underlying action. It also held that the underlying court's findings that representation of the class was adequate to approve the settlement serves as an independent basis, beyond the claims administrator's decision, to give preclusive effect to plaintiffs' assertion that defendants committed malpractice. The Superior Court dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiffs based on these holdings. The Justices hold, "Because we affirm on this basis, we need not address the Superior Court's holding as to the claims administrator's decision. Additionally, we conclude that plaintiffs asserted a litigation malpractice claim, not a transactional malpractice claim." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pee5hb BRIDGE IT: Kelly's Bid to Remand to Court of Common Pleas Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled KENDALL KELLY, et al., Plaintiffs v. BRIDGE IT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01262-WSS (W.D. Pa.), Judge William S. Stickman, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint ("Complaint") in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Case No. GD-24-007471), which Defendant Bridge IT, Inc. ("Brigit") removed to this Court. The Complaint was amended to reflect that the matter is now Plaintiff Kendall Kelly ("Kelly"), individually and on behalf of the defined class, filing against Brigit. Kelly claims that Brigit violated the Loan Interest and Protection Law ("LIPL"), Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"), Truth-In-Lending Act ("TILA"), Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). Ms. Kelly has moved to remand the action to state court. The Court is deprived of federal question jurisdiction over Kelly's claims because all of the relevant federal claims have been dropped. Ms. Kelly is an individual, who resides in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and Brigit is a technology company headquartered in New York City. Brigit is an app that provides users with cash advances up to $250 if they satisfy proprietary underwriting criteria. To obtain an advance, users link their bank account to the app authorizing Brigit to automatically debit the linked bank account, repaying Brigit's advances and fees on payday. The Plaintiff alleges that the requirements have resulted in Brigit obtaining repayment on virtually every advance it issues to a customer. Kelly was a Brigit customer, and the advances she received, used for personal, family, and/or household purposes, allegedly yielded triple-digit annual percentage rates ("APRs"). With an advance repayment schedule of two weeks or less, Kelly claims her advances yielded APRs of 572.63% or more, which far exceeds the 6% APR limit under Pennsylvania law. Ms. Kelly also alleges that during the time she used Brigit's app, Brigit failed to inform its users at any point during the 18-screen sign up process, that they would be required to arbitrate their claims by using the app, or that they would be required to waive their right to a jury trial. As a result, Kelly sought to certify all persons, who obtained an advance or loan from the Defendant within the statute of limitations while they resided in Pennsylvania as a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Richard Radomski, Dennis Coffman, and Kendall Kelly filed the initial Complaint in this action on July 11, 2024. On Sept. 5, 2024, Brigit removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1441 invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 arguing that the Plaintiffs' TILA and EFTA claims arose under federal law. The Court then granted Plaintiffs Richard Radomski and Dennis Coffman's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Nov. 26, 2024. Kelly then filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on Nov. 26, 2024, and the instant Motion for Remand on Dec. 9, 2024, asserting that only issues pertaining to Pennsylvania state law remain, including LIPL and U.S. District Court for the Central District of California claims. Brigit, in its Brief in Opposition to Motion for Remand argues that even though Kelly dropped her federal claims, the Court retains jurisdiction over this action because an independent basis for original jurisdiction exists under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Court finds it no longer has federal question jurisdiction because the Amended Complaint removed all federal law claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kelly's state claims. Judge Stickman opines that Brigit's Notice of Removal cannot support jurisdiction because it did not plead CAFA as a basis for removal. The Court finds that Brigit effectively waived its reliance upon CAFA as grounds for original jurisdiction by its failure to include it in the notice for removal. Brigit will also not be allowed to amend the notice as it would create an entirely new basis for jurisdiction. Thus, the Court grants Kelly's Motion for Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/34937h46 from PacerMonitor.com. CHARLES RIVER: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in 1st Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles River Laboratories International Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class action and derivative lawsuits are currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending further developments in the Securities Class Action pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A putative securities class action (Securities Class Action) was filed on May 19, 2023 against the Company and a number of its current/former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on November 14, 2023 that, among other things, included only James Foster, the Chief Executive Officer and David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer as defendants along with the Company. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020 through February 21, 2023, alleging that certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates made during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. On July 1, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint, denied the plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend, and entered judgment for defendants. On July 30, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral arguments took place on May 5, 2025. While the Company cannot predict the final outcome of this matter, it believes the class action to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in association with this matter. On November 8, 2023, a stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware asserting claims on the Company's behalf against the members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain of the Company's current/former officers (James Foster, the Chief Executive Officer; David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer; and Flavia Pease, the current Chief Financial Officer). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders because certain of the Company's disclosures about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human primates were materially false or misleading. The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls over securities disclosure and compliance with applicable law and by failing to comply with the company's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. On August 2, 2024, a different stockholder filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Delaware asserting similar derivative claims on the Company's behalf against members of the Company's current and former Board of Directors and the same current/former officers based on similar allegations of purportedly misleading disclosures and non-compliance with legal rules and ethics standards in respect of the importation of non-human primates, as well as insider-trading claims against certain of the defendants. Both of these lawsuits are currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending further developments in the Securities Class Action pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. While the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters, it believes the derivative lawsuits to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against them. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential exposure or the range of possible loss in association with these matters. CMS-NY/PA LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Smalt Due Feb. 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Smalt, et al., v. CMS-NY/PA, LLC, et al. Case No. 3:24-cv-01441-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order as follows: Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by May 6, 2025. No later than Jan. 30, 2026, the plaintiff(s) shall identify any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). No later than March 16, 2026, the defendant(s) shall identify any expert(s) and, unless waived, shall serve on the other parties the expert's written report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Conditional Certification Motion are to be filed on or before Sept. 30, 2025. Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. Mandatory Mediation shall be completed by July 31, 2025. CMS sells property, auto, homeowners, and life insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmxbwA at no extra charge.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Court to enter an order extending class certification deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to May 22, 2025 file the motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Defendant to oppose July 24, 2025 the motion for class certification and produce any expert report(s) in support of its opposition Mediation Deadline: Aug. 26, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Sept. 16, 2025 the reply in support of motion for class certification: Deadline for Defendant to file Oct. 14, 2025 any replies in support of its Daubert motion(s) and any opposition(s) to Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Nov. 12, 2025 any replies in support of its Daubert motion(s): Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion Dec. 17, 2025 for class certification and any Daubert motion(s): One of the Plaintiffs' experts has reported that his father died today, May 12, 2025, and he needs time to attend to his family. The Plaintiffs were in the process of finalizing that expert's report but likely will not be able to do so this week, the suit says. 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 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8tYMw 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 COMPUTER HAUS: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Jahagirdar FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE COMPUTER HAUS NC, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motions for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Shailesh Jahagirdar, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Computer Haus NC, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00033-MOC-WCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On October 20, 2023, a final judgment was entered by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. On May 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees. On May 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or correct their motion for attorney fees. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Cogburn granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motions for attorney fees. The appellate case is entitled Shailesh Jahagirdar v. Computer Haus NC, Inc., Case No. 25-1451, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. GESSNERLAW, PLLC 602 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 234-7442 Defendants-Appellants THE COMPUTER HAUS NC, INC., et al. are represented by: Ryan Michel Arnold, Esq. TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA 13925 Ballantyne Corporate Place Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (984) 292-2992 - and – Nathan Adam White, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NATHAN A. WHITE 1521 Walton Road Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 492-6574 CORNERSTONE BUILDING: $648K in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Ramirez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $647,500 in the lawsuit titled ESMERALDA LIZBETH MENDEZ LOZANO, LILIAN CABRERA, ANA ROSA MENDOZA, ALICIA FERNANDEZ, DULCE NIETO, ROSA HERNANDEZ, NATHANIEL WILLIAMS individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC.; PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION; SIMONTON WINDOWS & DOORS INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01017-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.). The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Lilian Cabrera, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Alicia Fernandez, Dulce Nieto, Rosa Hernandez, and Nathaniel Williams's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Payments. On Oct. 8, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), and thereby preliminarily approved the settlement of the action ("Action") in accordance with the Joint Stipulation Re Settlement of Class Action ("Agreement" or "Settlement Agreement") entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, and Simonton Windows & Doors, Inc., which, together with the exhibits annexed thereto set forth the terms and conditions for settlement of the Action ("Settlement"). The Court finds that the Enhancement Payments sought are fair and reasonable for the work performed by the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class Members. It is ordered that the Settlement Administrator issue payment in the amount of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Lilian Cabrera, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Alicia Fernandez, Dulce Nieto, Rosa Hernandez, and Nathaniel Williams for their Enhancement Payments, according to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $647,500 to Lawyers for Justice, PC, and Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP ("Class Counsel") falls within the range of reasonableness, and the results achieved justify the award sought. The requested attorneys' fees to Class Counsel are fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and are approved. It is ordered that the Settlement Administrator issue payment in the amount of $647,500 to Lawyers for Justice PC and Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $29,290.90 to Class Counsel are reasonable, and are approved. It is ordered that the Settlement Administrator issue payment in the amount of $29,290.90 to Class Counsel for litigation costs and expenses, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Judge Nunley notes that individualized notice of this Order is not required to be provided to Class Members. A copy of this Order will be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website, which is accessible to Class Members, for a period of at least sixty (60) calendar days after the date of entry of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ucc7nwn from PacerMonitor.com. CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Has Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment approving the Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit entitled ESMERALDA LIZBETH MENDEZ LOZANO, LILIAN CABRERA, ANA ROSA MENDOZA, ALICIA FERNANDEZ, DULCE NIETO, ROSA HERNANDEZ, NATHANIEL WILLIAMS individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC.; PLY GEM PACIFIC WINDOWS CORPORATION; SIMONTON WINDOWS & DOORS INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01017-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.). The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Lilian Cabrera, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Alicia Fernandez, Dulce Nieto, Rosa Hernandez, and Nathaniel Williams' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Oct. 8, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"), and thereby preliminarily approved the settlement of the action ("Action") in accordance with the Joint Stipulation Re Settlement of Class Action ("Agreement" or "Settlement Agreement") entered into by and between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, and Simonton Windows & Doors, Inc., which, together with the exhibits annexed thereto set forth the terms and conditions for settlement of the Action ("Settlement"). With respect to the Class and for purposes of approving this Settlement only, the Court finds that: (a) the members of the Class are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class, and there is a well-defined community of interest among members of the Class with respect to the subject matter of the Action; (c) the claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the Class; (d) a class action is superior to other available methods for an efficient adjudication of this controversy; and (e) the counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, Lawyers for Justice, PC and Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, are qualified to serve as counsel for the Class. The Class is defined to include: All current and former California non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendants, who worked at any time during the period from April 12, 2017, through Jan. 11, 2023. The Court confirms Lawyers for Justice, PC, and Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP as counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel"), and Plaintiffs Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Lilian Cabrera, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Alicia Fernandez, Dulce Nieto, Rosa Hernandez, and Nathaniel Williams as representatives of the Class ("Class Representatives"). The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that it is reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class as a whole. The Court finds that a full opportunity has been afforded to Class Members to make objections to the Settlement and a full opportunity has been afforded to Class Members to participate in the Final Approval Hearing. All Class Members and other persons wishing to be heard have been heard. The Court also finds that Class Members also have had a full and fair opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court determines that all Class Members, who did not submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion to the Settlement Administrator ("Settlement Class Members") are bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment. The Court finds that payment of Administration Costs in the amount of $20,000 is appropriate for the services performed and costs incurred and to be incurred for the notice and settlement administration process. It is ordered that the Settlement Administrator, Apex Class Action, LLC, will issue payment to itself in the amount of $20,000, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the allocations of $100,000 toward penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. ("PAGA Settlement Amount"), is fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and approved. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the PAGA Settlement Amount as follows: the amount of $75,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the amount of $25,000 to be distributed to Class Members, who were employed by the Defendants in California as hourly non-exempt employees during the period from April 5, 2020, through Oct. 8, 2024 ("PAGA Group Members"), on a pro rata basis based on their Workweeks during the period from April 5, 2020, through Jan. 11, 2023, according to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court enters Judgment by which, upon the Effective Date and the Defendants' full funding of the Gross Settlement Amount, Settlement Class Members will be conclusively determined to have given a release of any and all Released Class Claims against the Released Parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice. The Final Approval Order and Judgment also provides, among other things, that the Defendant will fund the Gross Settlement Amount pursuant to the Settlement Administrator's wire instructions within fifteen (15) business days following the Effective Date, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xhexwv6 from PacerMonitor.com. COX AUTOMOTIVE: Class & PAGA Settlement in Touch Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants final approval of class action and PAGA settlement in the lawsuit captioned SAMNANG TOUCH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORP SVCS., LLC, a limited liability company; COX AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.). The matter came on for hearing on May 1, 2025, on Plaintiff Samnang Touch's ("Plaintiff" or "Class Representative") Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and Private Attorneys General Act Settlement on the terms set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement"). The Plaintiff has alleged claims against Defendants Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC and Cox Automotive Mobility Solutions, Inc., on behalf of herself and all past and present California non-exempt employees of the Defendant who, after May 19, 2022, received wage statements showing a total hours figure that did not match the hours worked in the pay period. On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint for violation of California Labor Code Section 226 in the San Joaquin Superior Court. On Aug. 2, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Representative Complaint adding a cause of action for California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. On Sept. 8, 2023, the San Joaquin Superior Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Consolidate the two separate lawsuits that were filed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant subsequently removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and is currently assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-TLN-CSK. The Defendant expressly denies the allegations of wrongdoing and violations of law alleged in this Action, asserts that it provided accurate itemized wage statements, and further denies any liability whatsoever to the Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members. Without admitting any liability, claim, or defense the Parties determined that it was mutually advantageous to settle this Action and avoid the costs, delay, uncertainty, and business disruption of ongoing litigation. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Parties' class action settlement in this Action on Oct. 8, 2024 ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Class Notice was sent to the Class Members in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. A fairness hearing on the proposed class action settlement was held and a decision was reached. The Court has determined that the class notice given to the Class Members fully and accurately informed all Class Members of all material elements of the proposed class action settlement -- including the plan of distribution of Class Settlement Amount, the application for a Service Award to the Plaintiff, and the application for Class Counsels' Attorneys' Fees and Costs -- constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constituted valid, due, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class Members, and complied fully with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, and any other applicable laws. The Court grants final approval of the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects to the Settlement Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 and orders the Parties and the Settlement Administrator to implement all remaining terms of the Settlement Agreement pertaining to the distribution of the Class Settlement Amount and Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The plan of distribution as set forth in the Settlement Agreement providing for the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount to Settlement Class Members is finally approved as being fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23. As previously held in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Nunley holds the Class for settlement purposes is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and related case law and is defined as follows: all current and former California non-exempt employees of Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC who, after May 19, 2022, received wage statements showing a total hours figure that did not match the hours worked in the pay period. The Class Period is defined as May 19, 2022, through July 7, 2023. As previously held in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the Court appoints as Class Counsel, Diversity Law Group, Polaris Law Group, Hyun Legal, APC, and Law Offices of Choi & Associates, P.C. The Court approves payment of a Class Representative Service Award of $5,000 to the Plaintiff for her service to the Class, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Class Settlement Amount. The Court approves the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $50,000 to Class Counsel, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Class Settlement Amount. The Court also approves the additional payment of attorneys' costs in the amount of $19,418.34 to Class Counsel to reimburse them for their expenses, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Class Settlement Amount. The Court approves a payment of up to $6,500 to the Settlement Administrator out of the Class Settlement Amount. Any portion of the payment to the Settlement Administrator that is unused will go to the Net Settlement Amount. Any checks for Individual Settlement Payments that are not cashed within 180 days will be paid to the California State Controller's Office in the name of the Qualified Claimant. All claims asserted in this Action are dismissed with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party will bear her or its own costs and attorneys' fees, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and as set forth in this Order and as set forth in any other Order issued in response to the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, which hearings took place concurrently with the hearing for this Order. Upon entry of this Order, the claims in this Action and the Released Class Claims of each Class Member against the Defendant, and against any and all of the Released Parties as defined in the Settlement Agreement, are fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement to the maximum extent permitted by law. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/52pbz7jc from PacerMonitor.com. CREDIT SUISSE: Court Denies Filing of 3rd Amended Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overrules the Lead Plaintiffs' objections to an opinion and order denying their motion to file a third amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs Set Capital LLC, Stefan Jager, Aleksandr Gamburg, and Apollo Asset Limited bring this class action on behalf of themselves and purchasers, acquirers, sellers, and redeemers of VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes ("XIV Notes" or "Notes") against Defendants Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, and Credit Suisse International (together, "Credit Suisse"), former Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Thiam, and former CFO David R. Mathers, alleging that the Defendants executed a complex fraud to collapse the market for XIV Notes and asserting claims under Sections 9, 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). In December 2022, the Court granted Nikolay Drozhzhinov's request to withdraw as a lead plaintiff. In July 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against Janus Henderson Group PLC, Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and Janus Distributors LLC without prejudice. The Lead Plaintiffs move for an order permitting them to file a third amended complaint. Pursuant to an order of reference, the Honorable Sarah Netburn issued an opinion and order (the "O&O") denying the motion. Before the Court are the Lead Plaintiffs' timely objections to the O&O. For reasons stated in this Order, the Court overrules the objections. Judge Torres notes that this securities class action has a complex factual and procedural background. The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the action, which have been set forth in previous decisions, and summarizes only those details relevant to this Order. XIV Notes were exchange-traded notes ("ETNs") issued by Credit Suisse that increased in value when market volatility fell and decreased in value when market volatility rose. In purchasing ETNs, investors pay money to the institution issuing the ETNs in return for a payment when the notes mature, the amount of which is derived from a market index. In the case of XIV Notes, their value was derived from the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index (the "VIX Futures Index" or "Index"), an index that aggregates the value of VIX futures contracts, which in turn track expected market volatility. This means that when the market expects higher volatility, the VIX Futures Index increases; when the market expects lower volatility, the Index decreases. A futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell a particular financial instrument on a later date at a predetermined price. To allow investors to profit from low market volatility, the value of XIV Notes was inverse to the VIX Futures Index. This inverse relationship between the Notes and the Index meant that as market volatility declined and the Index decreased, the Notes increased in value by an equivalent degree; as market volatility rose and the Index increased, the Notes dropped in value by an equivalent degree. Between 2010 and 2018, Credit Suisse issued more than 30 million XIV Notes. The value of the Notes increased dramatically over this period. Because Credit Suisse's potential liability proportionately increased with the value of XIV Notes, it routinely offset, or "hedged," its exposure by taking short positions on VIX futures contracts. This meant that a decrease in the VIX Futures Index would increase Credit Suisse's obligation to noteholders but would also allow Credit Suisse to profit from its short positions on VIX futures contracts, offsetting the higher redemption values of the Notes. Although the value of XIV Notes increased on average from 2010 to 2018, three episodes of high market volatility caused the VIX Futures Index to spike and the value of XIV Notes to temporarily drop. During these episodes of high market volatility, Credit Suisse and other ETN issuers bought large quantities of VIX futures contracts after market close to continue hedging their positions. Each time they did so, there was insufficient liquidity in the VIX futures contracts market; that is, not enough VIX futures contracts to meet the high hedging demand from Credit Suisse and other ETN issuers. These post-market-close hedging activities contributed to a liquidity squeeze that made the price of VIX futures contracts soar even higher, which in turn caused the value of XIV Notes to temporarily plummet. In January 2018, Credit Suisse issued over 16 million XIV Notes. It did so pursuant to a registration statement, prospectus, prospectus supplement, and pricing supplement (together, the "Offering Documents"). The Offering Documents disclosed certain risks associated with investing in XIV Notes and Credit Suisse's intent to hedge its exposure to the Notes. The Offering Documents also advised investors of Credit Suisse's right to accelerate the Notes under certain circumstances; that is, to force XIV noteholders to redeem their Notes. Credit Suisse could accelerate redemption of the Notes if a predefined "acceleration event" occurred, including if the Notes' "intraday indicative value" dropped eighty percent or more from the previous day's "closing indicative value." Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC ("JIC"), a calculation agent, was responsible for calculating and disseminating the intraday and closing indicative values. JIC computed the Notes' intraday indicative value using an automated formula based on the inverse of the VIX Futures Index and was required to publish this value every fifteen seconds on each trading day. On Feb. 5, 2018, the S&P 500 Index dropped 4.1 percent. This increase in market volatility caused the VIX Futures Index to spike, decreasing the value of XIV Notes. Over the course of market trading on Feb. 5, the intraday indicative value of the Notes dropped from approximately $108.37 to $72.59. In response, Credit Suisse purchased over 100,000 VIX futures contracts after market close. As with the prior episodes of high market volatility, these purchases contributed to a liquidity squeeze that caused the VIX Futures Index to skyrocket and the value of XIV Notes to plummet. By 4:09 p.m., the value of the Notes had dropped to $27. From 4:09 p.m. to 5:09 p.m., the Notes' intraday indicative value was not updated every fifteen seconds and did not reflect the Notes' accurate value. Instead, the intraday indicative value updated sporadically, valuing the Notes at about $27 (the "Flatline Value"). In reality, the Notes' value continued to drop, and it was not until 5:09 p.m. that the correct intraday indicative value of $4.22 was disseminated. During this hour, under the mistaken belief that an acceleration event had not occurred, investors purchased more than $700 million in XIV Notes at inflated prices. The next day, Credit Suisse declared an acceleration event based on the Notes' drop in value and ultimately redeemed the Notes at $5.99 per note. The Lead Plaintiffs estimate that Credit Suisse made between $475 million and $542 million in profits by redeeming the Notes at that price, resulting in approximately $1.8 billion in losses to investors. This action was commenced in March 2018. In August of that year, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "CCAC"). In the CCAC, the Lead Plaintiffs allege that Credit Suisse (1) plotted a manipulative scheme to crash the XIV Note market (the "manipulation claim"); (2) misstated or omitted its knowledge and intent to engage in the manipulative scheme (the "misrepresentation claim"); and (3) failed to correct the Flatline Value on February 5 (the "Flatline Value claim"), all in violation of securities laws. The Lead Plaintiffs' manipulation claim stems from Credit Suisse's hedging activity. Specifically, the CCAC alleges that, after observing prior episodes of high market volatility, Credit Suisse discerned its ability to drive down the value of XIV Notes by purchasing VIX futures contracts after market close; that Credit Suisse then issued millions of Notes knowing that the next episode of high market volatility would allow it to manipulate the market and profit at investors' expense; and that Credit Suisse did, in fact, manipulate the market by collapsing the value of the Notes on February 5 through its own hedge trading--all at a substantial loss to investors. In November 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the CCAC for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to an order of reference, Judge Netburn issued a report (the "R&R") recommending that the CCAC be dismissed in its entirety. The Court adopted the R&R in full and dismissed the CCAC in September 2019. The Lead Plaintiffs appealed the Court's order. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. As relevant here, the Second Circuit vacated the Court's dismissal of the manipulation and misrepresentation claims and affirmed the Court's dismissal of the Flatline Value claim. Critical to the Second Circuit's vacatur of the manipulation claim dismissal was the fact that the claim focuses on Credit Suisse's hedging activity, Judge Torres says. The court explained that "the [CCAC] alleges more than routine hedging activity: It alleges that Credit Suisse flooded the market with millions of additional XIV Notes for the very purpose of enhancing the impact of its hedging trades and collapsing the market for the [N]otes." In affirming the Court's dismissal of the Flatline Value claim, the Second Circuit held that the Lead Plaintiffs failed to allege scienter. The court noted that the CCAC does not allege that Credit Suisse had a motive or opportunity to falsify the Flatline Value. The court then stated that the CCAC also fails to allege scienter based on strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness on Credit Suisse's part. Upon remand, the parties engaged in discovery before Judge Netburn for over a year. In August 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended CCAC (the "Operative Complaint"). Again, the Operative Complaint's manipulation claim centers solely on Credit Suisse's hedging activity. From August 2022 to April 2023, the parties continued to engage in discovery. In April 2023, Judge Netburn extended, for the fifth and last time, the deadline for fact discovery to April 19, 2023. On April 28, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend the Operative Complaint. First, the Lead Plaintiffs move to add a new theory of liability regarding how Credit Suisse manipulated the market--not just through its own hedging but also through its lending practices and the acts of third parties (the "proposed lending allegations"). Second, the Lead Plaintiffs move to, in their words, "add[] evidence sufficient to revive" the Flatline Value claim (the "proposed Flatline Value allegations"). In January 2024, Judge Netburn issued the O&O denying the Lead Plaintiffs leave to amend. Among other things, Judge Netburn concluded that the proposed lending allegations will cause the Defendants undue prejudice. The Lead Plaintiffs object to the O&O's conclusion that the proposed lending allegations will unduly prejudice the Defendants, arguing that the O&O is based on an erroneous understanding of the allegations and that any additional discovery would be modest. Judge Torres finds that the O&O's finding that the proposed lending allegations will cause undue prejudice to the Defendants is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The proposed lending allegations shift the focus of liability from Credit Suisse's hedging practices to its lending practices and third-party hedging by claiming that Credit Suisse intentionally pumped the market full of XIV short-sellers that would see to it that XIV Notes were pushed to the point of collapse. Judge Torres opines that these allegations don't just "add factual detail" to the alleged manipulative scheme; they add a different claim. Because the proposed lending allegations shift the focus to the acts of third parties, the Court agrees with the O&O that the Defendants would be entitled to mount a defense based on the trading behavior and intent of those third parties. Judge Torres points out that such defense would require reopening discovery, consume months of additional litigation, and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Next, the Lead Plaintiffs object to the O&O's denial of leave to file the proposed Flatline Value allegations on futility grounds, arguing that the PTAC "pleads precisely [the] facts" that the Second Circuit found lacking. In dismissing the Flatline Value claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Second Circuit concluded that the CCAC did not plausibly allege the following: that Credit Suisse had a motive or opportunity to falsify the Flatline Value; that Credit Suisse was under an obligation to calculate or monitor the intraday indicative value; or that, instead of relying on the VIX Futures Index, Defendants monitored the Index's pricing data and calculated a redundant pricing index for VIX futures contracts in order to verify the accuracy of the Index. In their proposed Flatline Value allegations, Judge Torres says the Lead Plaintiffs do not allege that Credit Suisse had a motive or opportunity to falsify the Flatline Value, or that it was under an obligation to calculate or monitor the intraday indicative value. Instead, the Lead Plaintiffs allege that certain Credit Suisse traders independently computed the Notes' intraday indicative value by calculating the Notes' net asset value and that traders also had access to Bloomberg terminals that calculated a continuous and accurate price for XIV Notes. The Lead Plaintiffs, however, do not address the deficiencies identified by the Second Circuit: They still fail to allege that Credit Suisse monitored the VIX Futures Index's pricing data and calculated a redundant pricing index for VIX futures contracts to verify the accuracy of the Index, Judge Torres points out. Accordingly, the O&O's conclusion that the proposed Flatline Value allegations are futile because they do not plead that Credit Suisse "monitored the VIX Futures Index for accuracy" or "created a redundant internal VIX Futures Index" is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. For these reasons, the Court overrules the Lead Plaintiffs' objections to the O&O. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5fbvfkd9 from PacerMonitor.com. CURRENEX INC: Class Certification Bid in Edmar Modified to Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY, LLC; IRISH BLUE & GOLD, INC.; and XTX MARKETS LIMITED, V. CURRENEX, INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; HC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; STATE STREET GLOBAL MARKETS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-5, Case No. 1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Kaplan entered an order modifying the Case Management Schedule as follows: Event Date Completion of fact discovery, including all Sept. 19, 2025 depositions of fact witnesses: Class certification motion due and supporting Nov. 18, 2025 expert reports due, including all data and code relied upon by the Plaintiffs' experts: Class certification opposition and supporting Dec. 23, 2025 expert reports due, including all data and code relied upon by Defendants' experts: Class certification reply and any supporting Jan. 23, 2026 reply expert reports due, including all data and code relied upon by Plaintiffs' experts: Defendants' replies in support of Defendants' Feb. 6, 2026 Daubert motions due (including all data and code relied upon by Defendants' experts): Currenex is a market-leading technology provider offering the FX community high-performance technology and deep pools of liquidity for anonymous and disclosed trade execution. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SUCtzK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Thomas J. Lepri, Esq. Christopher M. Seek, Esq. Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART& SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison A venue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (2 12) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com christopherseck@quinnemanuel.com jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Mark Ruddy, Esq. RUDDY GREGORY, PLLC 1225 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 797-0762 Facsimile: (202) 3 18-0543 E-mail: rnruddy@ruddylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregg L. Weiner, Esq. Alexander B. Simkin, Esq. Robert G. Jones, Esq. Samer Musallam, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 121 1 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (2 12) 596-5000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 E-mail: gregg.weiner@ropesgray.com alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com robert.jones@ropesgray.com samer.musallam@ropesgray.com DENSO INT'L: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of England, et al. ERISA Su ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Allen Griffin, David W. McKeague and Joan L. Larsen of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissing the class action complaint against DENSO International America, Inc. relating to its 401(k) plan fees. Defendant DENSO International America, Inc., makes auto parts. It sponsors and provides to its employees a 401(k) defined contribution pension plan, known as the DENSO Retirement Savings Plan. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs the Plan. DENSO, its National Retirement Committee, and the individual defendants (DENSO's president and individual members of DENSO's National Retirement Committee) are the Plan's ERISA fiduciaries. Plaintiffs are current and former DENSO employees who participate in the Plan. As of 2020, the Plan had about 14,000 participants and over $1.7 billion in assets -- more participants and assets than 99% of other plans in the United States. Because the Plan has more than $500 million in assets, plaintiffs deem it a "mega 401(k) Plan." "Mega plans" contract with third-party recordkeeping companies for "all the essential recordkeeping and related administrative ("RKA") services through standard, bundled offerings of the same level and quality." In this putative class action, plaintiffs claim that defendant DENSO's 401(k) Plan overpaid for recordkeeping and administrative services. Empower is the Plan's recordkeeper. Between 2016 and 2020, the Plan paid Empower approximately $71 per participant for its recordkeeping and administrative services. That amount is more than double what plaintiffs assert it should have been. For support, plaintiffs set forth a table of 15 comparable plans of similar sizes with similar amounts of money under management, receiving a similar level and quality of services that pay recordkeeping fees ranging from $25 to $39 per participant. And plaintiffs display this data in a graph showing the trend line" for RKA fees in comparable plans. Based on this comparison with other plans' fees, plaintiffs allege that the Plan's contract with Empower led to lower net returns because of excessive and objectively unreasonable recordkeeping fees to the tune of an extra $39 per participant per year, totaling over $3.4 million over the applicable period. In relation to the comparators' fees, the Plan, plaintiffs claim, was excessive relative to the level and quality of recordkeeping services received since the same level and quality of services are generally offered to mega plans, like the DENSO Plan, regardless of the number or level of services selected by the Plan. Plaintiffs assert that a prudent plan fiduciary should be able to negotiate a Bundled RKA fee lower than the trend line such that the total RKA fee would be proximate to the trend line. Had defendants done so, plaintiffs would have seen greater returns from their pensions. Therefore, plaintiffs claim, defendants breached ERISA's duty of prudence and the derivative duties to monitor that selection of its recordkeeper. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court disagreed with plaintiffs and entered judgment in defendants' favor. It dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failing to set forth the required "context specific" facts -- such as the types and quality of services provided -- to render plausible an ERISA overpayment-for-recordkeeping services claim. Plaintiffs appeal. Measured against these standards, the Circuit Judges hold that nothing in plaintiffs' complaint permits us to reasonably infer a breach of the duty of prudence. As the district court astutely observed, the complaint provides no details about the specific types or quality of services that the comparator plans received relative to those the DENSO plan received. Indeed, the complaint admits that there are variations in the level and quality of RKA services provided to mega plans. Although it attempts to characterize these differences as immaterial, it provides us with no way to determine that conclusion's plausibility. That failure to explain these differences or demonstrate a meaningful benchmark leaves us unable to evaluate whether the fee is excessive under the circumstances. The appealed case is styled as MARTHA D. ENGLAND; DUSTIN M. MARTIN; JOSEPHINE THOMAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DENSO INTERNATIONAL AMERICA INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-1360 (6th Cir.), A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MypXXE DIDI GLOBAL: Plaintiffs Must Submit Sur-Sur-Reply by June 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the parties jointly request a one-week extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to submit their sur-sur-reply, to June 6, 2025. On April 17, 2025, the parties submitted a stipulation for additional briefing concerning Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification to address an argument that Plaintiffs raised in their reply brief, as well as an expert report in support of the same. The Court so-ordered that stipulation and ordered that DiDi's sur-reply would be due May 19, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ sur-surreply would be due May 30, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mXZIqk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Philip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. Sam Cleveland, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com samcleveland@quinnemanuel.com - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3902 Facsimile: (212) 777-3902 E-mail: smusoff@skadden.com robert.fumerton@skadden.com michael.griffin@skadden.com DNC TRAVEL: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert by Oct. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Haydee Mendoza et al v. DNC Travel Hospitality SVCS et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11233-WLH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order granting ex parte application to extend time to File Class Certification motion. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request by providing the Plaintiffs until Oct. 10, 2025, to file motion for class certification. DNC provides retail, lodging, special events, gaming, and catering services. DNC provides retail, lodging, special events, gaming, and catering services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GztLyp at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD J. TRUMP: Court Certifies Class in D.B.U., et al. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted D.B.U. and R.M.M's motion for class certification in the case captioned as D.B.U. and R.M.M., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States: PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT GAUDIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; and DAWN CEJA, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, in her official capacity, Respondents-Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS (D. Colo.). On March 14, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a proclamation designated Tren de Aragua (TdA) a Foreign Terrorist Organization and declaring, among other things, TdA is perpetuating, attempting, and threatening an alien invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. The Proclamation's declarations, findings, directions were made pursuant to the President's authority, under 50 U.S.C. Sec. 21 -- the Alien Enemies Act. Petitioners D.B.U. and R.M.M. are Venezuelan citizens presently detained at the ICE Denver Contract Detention Facility. In an April 17, 2025, immigration proceeding, an immigration judge indicated that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement suggests that D.B.U. has a gang affiliation. In a Form 1-213 statement, ICE identified R.M.M. as an Associate/Active of TdA, and that R.M.M. is a known member Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS Document 51 filed 05/06/25 USDC Colorado pg 3 of TdA. Both D.B.U. and R.M.M. deny TdA membership, but are at grave risk of ICE alleging that they are TdA members. Petitioners argue they have met Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's certification requirements. Respondents disagree, arguing -- regardless of whether certified under Rule 23 or equitable habeas principles -- Petitioners have not met their certification burden. Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court concludes Petitioners have met their certification burden, and that certification of the class they seek to represent is proper. Petitioners argue they satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement because the proposed class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. The Court agrees with Petitioners and is satisfied they meet their numerosity burden. As to commonality, Petitioners assert that because the proposed class's claims include common questions of law and fact that they meet their commonality burden. Respondents resist, on the basis Petitioners' contentions are not shared by the class. Specifically, that Petitioners -- who are not detained under the Act -- do not share an interest in common with those of class members. The Court agrees with Petitioners they have met their commonality burden. Respondents argue that Petitioners are not part of the proposed class, directing the Court again to the factual distinctions in Petitioners' detainment under the INA and Title 8, and the detainment of class members under the Proclamation and Act. This argument failed to persuade as a matter of commonality and fails again. Tenth Circuit precedent, by which the Court is bound, plainly forecloses it. As with the Court's commonality analysis, Petitioners have met their Rule 23(a)(3) typicality burden, and Respondents fail to persuade otherwise Petitioners, reciting Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement, contend they satisfy it because there is no conflict between the interest of Petitioners and class members, and proposed class counsel are sufficiently experienced. The Court agrees with Petitioners they have met their adequacy burden. The Court finds Petitioners D.B.U. and R.M.M. have, by a preponderance of the evidence, satisfied Rule 23(a)'s threshold certification requirements. Plaintiffs bring this class action under Rule 23(b)(2). Petitioners argue that they have satisfied Rule 23(b)(2) because Respondents have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class by subjecting them all to the same Proclamation Respondents counter Petitioners cannot secure common injunctive relief because class members are likely to be differently situated from Petitioners or from each other. The Court agrees with Petitioners. Petitioners contend that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is proper because the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive, and that the injunctive relief they seek would benefit them as well as all members of the proposed class in the same fashion. Respondents argue resolution of Petitioners' proposed contentions might result in injunctive relief for some class members, but not all of them. The Court agrees with Petitioners. The Court concludes certification of Petitioner D.B.U. and R.M.M.'s proposed class is appropriate. Petitioners have satisfied Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court grants Petitioners' class certification motion, certifying the class Petitioners seek to represent: All noncitizens in custody in the District of Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua' and/or its implementation. Petitioners D.B.U. and R.M.M. are named as class representatives. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Lee Gelernt of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation is appointed lead counsel for the certified class, and all ACLU attorneys who have appeared in this matter as counsel of record for Petitioners are appointed co-counsel for the certified class. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAcXz9 from PacerMonitor.com. DONALD J. TRUMP: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in G.F.F. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Donald J. Trump's motion to decertify the class in the case captioned as G.F.F., et al., Petitioners, -against- DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Respondents, Case No. 25-cv-02886 (S.D.N.Y.). Respondents claim that there are only eight persons in the class Petitioners seek to represent -- too few to satisfy the requirement of numerosity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The class, as amended, is defined as: All noncitizens in federal, state, or local custody in the Southern District of New York who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua" and/or its implementation, who have not been given notice following the Supreme Court's decision of April 7, 2025, Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, and granted a hearing. Since the Class was properly certified, the Court denies Respondents' motion. In Judge Hellerstein's Opinion and Order of April 9, 2025, granting class certification, the considerations of numerosity are broader than the sheer number of individuals in the class. He concludes, "Here, it is not known how many people in the jurisdiction of this Court may become subject to an order of removal. The issues resolved in this case may have to be resolved over and again as the government removal policy continues. Judicial efficiency, and considerations of due process for individuals yet to be ordered to be removed, support a class action." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NNhcDU from PacerMonitor.com. DONALD TRUMP: Court Decertifies Class in A.S.R. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.S.R., on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00113-SLH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Haines decertifies the class announced in its memorandum order at ECF No. 45. The Court has no evidence to find that the proposed members of the class would be unable to pursue remedies on an individual basis. A.S.R.'s proposed class fails to meet the numerosity requirement. In the memorandum order, the Court certified the following class: "All noncitizens in custody in the Western District of Pennsylvania who were, are, or will be subject to the [proclamation] and/or its implementation, who have not been given 14 days' notice following the Supreme Court's decision on April 7, 2025, Trump v. J.G.G., and "an opportunity to challenge their removal" under [the AEA]" A copy of the Court's opinion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MER4Uk at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Reconsideration of May 9 Denial Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.M.M., et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00059-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to reconsider its May 9, 2025 order denying Petitioners' Amended Motion for Class Certification. In the alternative, the Petitioners move the Court for an order certifying a class as to the issues that are common to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y115ws at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org mngo@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org - and - Brian Klosterboer, Esq. Thomas Buser-Clancy, Esq. Savannah Kumar, Esq. Charelle Lett, Esq. Ashley Harris, Esq. Adriana Piñon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. 1018 Preston St. Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 E-mail: bklosterboer@aclutx.org tbuser-clancy@aclutx.org skumar@aclutx.org clett@aclutx.org aharris@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 6 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned FARAH, et al., v. Emirates, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 6, 2021), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting letter motion for extension of time to complete discovery. -- The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended from May 23, 2025, to May 30, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification by June 6, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).[CC] ETOH MONITORING: 5th Circuit Affirms Ruling in Meade, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judges Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Priscilla Richman and Don R. Willett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granting ETOH Monitoring, L.L.C.'s motion for judgment of the pleadings in the class action filed by Hakeem Meade and Marshall Sookram. In 2006, lawyers Christian Helmke and Leonard Levenson founded ETOH, a company that supplies ankle monitors to defendants in various proceedings before the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. In 2016, Paul Bonin was elected as a judge on the OPCDC. During his campaign, Bonin accepted donations totaling $3,550 and a loan of $1,000 from Helmke and Levenson through their law firms. Meade and Sookram are former criminal defendants whom Judge Bonin directed to obtain ankle monitors from ETOH. They filed a putative class action against Judge Bonin and ETOH under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging due process violations. They maintain that Judge Bonin's relationship with ETOH demonstrates the appearance or reality of unconstitutional bias. ETOH moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, reasoning that the allegations regarding the relationship between ETOH and Judge Bonin failed to state a claim that rose to the level of a due process violation. Meade and Sookram timely appealed. The Circuit Judges hold that unexceptional campaign contributions and past business relations do not present an 'extraordinary situation' in which due process is implicated. Individually and in their totality, the ties between ETOH and Judge Bonin do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Because the ties alleged do not create an unconstitutional risk of judicial bias. They affirm. Meade and Sookram also challenge the district court's decision to dismiss their complaint with prejudice. According to the Circuit Judges, they fail to indicate what additional facts they could plead to correct the complaint's deficiencies. Under these circumstances, they have no basis on which to find an abuse of discretion by the district court.' The appealed is styled as Hakeem Meade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Marshall Sookram, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ETOH Monitoring, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee, No. 21-30620 (5th Cir.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gtLfcP EVOLVE BANK: Settlements in Fatnani, et al. Suit Get Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted final approval of the settlements between plaintiffs and defendants Evolve Bank & Trust and Mercury Technologies Inc. in the class action lawsuit captioned as AMIT FATNANI and SRINIVAS GURUZU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEM, INC., as successor to Umpqua Holdings Corporation; EVOLVE BANK AND TRUST; and MERCURY TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-712-SI (D. Ore.). The plaintiffs' motion for award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards is also granted final approval. Plaintiffs Amit Fatnani and Srinivas Guruzu bring this putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of Oregon securities law and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the following Defendants: JPMorgan Chase & Co.; KeyBank National Association; Columbia Banking System, Inc., as successor to Umpqua Holdings Corporation; Evolve Bank and Trust; and Mercury Technologies Inc. They allege that these Defendants violated Oregon securities law by participating in and providing material aid in the misleading sale of unregistered interests. They have reached amended settlements with Evolve and Mercury, moved for preliminary approval of those amended settlements, and the Court has preliminarily approved them. This action arises from an investment fraud referred to as the "Rose City Ponzi Scheme," started by Sam Ikkurty and Ravi Avadhanam. The Rose City Ponzi Scheme used limited partnership and limited liability companies known as the "Jafia Group" to defraud nearly $50 million from hundreds of individuals. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged Ikkurty and Avadhanam with organizing a Ponzi scheme, and Avadhanam pleaded guilty. The presiding court then entered judgment in favor of the CFTC and against Ikkurty on all counts. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants participated in and provided material aid to the Rose City Ponzi Scheme, including by accepting and clearing the funds necessary to complete the unlawful sales transactions and processing the supposed "distributions" in the scheme. Specifically, they allege that Evolve housed some of the Jafia Group's accounts, totaling almost $6 million, on the Mercury platform, and that Mercury issued account statements on behalf of itself and Evolve. They further assert that investor deposits were deposited into the Evolve/Mercury account, and that the same funds were paid out of the account as purported distributions. Plaintiffs allege that $1.6 million of the $6 million that Settling Defendants housed was transferred to another of the Jafia Group's accounts. Defendants, including the Settling Defendants, deny liability. Class Certification Plaintiffs move without objection to certify the Settlement Class defined as: All individuals and entities that invested in the "Alleged Ponzi Scheme" and/or contributed funds to the "Alleged Ponzi Scheme Entities." Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Sam Ikkurty, Ravi Avadhanam, and any Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of such Judge's staff and immediate family The Court previously agreed that the Class met the requisite factors in conditionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes in the preliminary approval of the Settlements. Records provided to the Settlement Administrator confirmed the number of Class Members to be 445. The Court therefore finds that the Class meets the numerosity requirement. Plaintiffs allege that the Class incurred losses due to Settling Defendants' participation in or provision of material aid to the Rose City Ponzi Scheme. Specifically, they allege that Settling Defendants accepted and cleared funds necessary to complete the unlawful sales transactions and processed supposed distributions" in the scheme. There are common issues of law and fact stemming from these allegations, including whether the Jafia Group securities were sold to Class Members in violation of Oregon securities law, whether the Jafia Group securities were sold by means of false statements of fact or omissions of material fact, and whether Settling Defendants participated in or materially aided the unlawful sale of Jafia Group securities. The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the commonality requirement. Plaintiffs' claims are based on the same conduct as the claims of the Settlement Class and there is nothing to suggest that Plaintiffs' claims are not coextensive with the those of the Class. Thus, the Class meets the typicality requirement. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the class because there is no evidence to suggest that they have any conflicts of interest with other Class Members. Class Counsel has vigorously pursued the interests of the Class, including by conducting a pre-suit investigation, filing multiple complaints, obtaining discovery, opposing Defendants' motions to dismiss, and engaging in settlement discussions. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel are adequate to represent the Class. The common questions relevant to Plaintiffs' claims predominate over any issues relevant to any individual Plaintiff. Plaintiffs' claims share essential factual issues including whether the Jafia Group violated Oregon securities law, and whether Settling Defendants participated in or materially aided the sale of these securities. Thus, the Class meets the predominance requirement. The cost of litigating individual securities fraud claims is high when compared to the amount of damages at stake for putative class members. Accordingly, because individual damages pale in comparison to the costs of litigation, this factor points toward certification. The Court finds that the Class meets the superiority requirement. The Class meets the requirements for class certification. The Court certifies for final settlement purposes among the Class and the Settling Defendants the following class: all individuals and entities that invested in the Alleged Ponzi Scheme and/or contributed funds to the Alleged Ponzi Scheme Entities. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest; (iii) Sam Ikkurty; (iv) Ravi Avadhanam; and (v) U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon and his immediate family members and chambers staff. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court. Settlement Approval The Settlement amount is $90,000. The proposed method of allocation awards each claimant a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund based on the claimant's net investment losses. Plaintiffs estimate that investors hold approximately $65 million in allowed claims, meaning that the Settlement amount provides a recovery of only 0.1 percent. It is important to note, however, that the Settlement amount is only against two of the remaining five Defendants, and Plaintiffs continue to pursue larger recoveries on their claims against the three non-settling Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel are collaborating with the Receiver in the CFTC action, who anticipates making a meaningful distribution to victims -- the latest filings show that the CFTC action currently has more than $26 million in the Qualified Settlement Fund. Based on these facts, the amount offered in these Settlement Agreements is adequate and supports approval of the Settlements. No Class Member objected to either of the two Settlements and only one Member opted out. The low rate of opt-outs and the lack of objections show that Class Members favor the Settlements. Class Counsel seeks 25 percent of the Settlement amount, which is not a disproportionate share. Further, the Settlements contain no "clear sailing" or reversion provisions. The Court identifies no evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest, which favors approval. The Court therefore finds that the two Settlements and Plans of Allocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court awards Class Counsel $22,500 in attorney's fees plus its actual costs incurred in administering the Settlement to be paid from the Settlement Fund up to $17,000. The Court further approves service awards in the amount of $1,000 to Mr. Fatnani and $500 to Mr. Guruzu to be paid from the Settlement Fund. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UH57ka EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------------- Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2025, that in June 2024, a putative class action complaint (Case 1:24-cv-07181) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Exscientia plc, Andrew Hopkins, Ben R. Taylor and David Nicholson captioned in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Recursion acquired Exscientia in November 2024 as part of an acquisition. Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false and misleading statements regarding Exscientia's business, operations, and prospects. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, on behalf of persons and/or entities which purchased Exscientia securities between March 2022 and February 2024. Said cases was consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2024 against Exscientia plc, Andrew Hopkins, and David Nicholson, and the Company moved to dismiss on January 21, 2025. That motion remains pending. Recursion Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company that decodes biology and chemistry to industrialize drug discovery. FUBOTV INC: Beasley Video Privacy Row Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- FuboTV 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 the company has been named as defendant in putative class action complaint, "Beasley v. fuboTV, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00711" (S.D.N.Y), bringing claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA,) alleging the company shared subscribers' personally identifiable information to third party advertisers and through the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics without consent. Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 29, 2025. FuboTV Inc. is a streaming platform based in New York. GENERAC POWER: Seeks Denial of Juliano's Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE JULIANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Case No. 7:23-cv-01329-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Defendant moves to deny class certification of Plaintiff Joe Juliano's claims on the grounds that the Plaintiff's proposed class claims do not meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). Class certification should be denied because the Plaintiff cannot meet the burden of showing that common issues predominate over individual issues, Generac contends. Generac produces and distributes power equipment. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BXdjDy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Megan M. Stacy, Esq. Kaitlin Romanelli Myers, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1120 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 787-4555 Facsimile: (919) 741-5840 E-mail: mstacy@grsm.com krmyers@grsm.com GENTNER DRUMMOND: Padres Unidos Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PADRES UNIDOS DE TULSA, et al., v. GENTNER DRUMMOND, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00511-J (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of class. The Plaintiffs request that this Court certify two classes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) in order to provide relief from the law’s uniform provisions to all affected individuals: The "Entry Class" comprises all noncitizens subject to H.B. 4156's new state crime of "Impermissible Occupation' which criminalizes "willfully and without permission entering and remaining in the State of Oklahoma without having first obtained legal authorization to enter the United States." The "Reentry Class" includes all noncitizens who may be subject to H.B. 4156's separate felony offense for "entering, attempting to enter, or [being] at any time found in Oklahoma" after they have been "denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or have departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding." These classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and fall within the scope of Rule 23(b)(2). Because H.B. 4156 threatens thousands of noncitizens who live in or travel through Oklahoma, the numerosity requirement is satisfied. Padres Unidos is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to advancing the rights and well-being of immigrant communities in Oklahoma. Gentner Drummond is an American attorney, rancher, Air Force veteran, and politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=62FA6M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elissa Stiles, Esq. RIVAS AND ASSOCIATES Tulsa, OK 74147 Telephone: (918) 419-0166 Facsimile: (918) 513-6724 E-mail: estiles@rivasassociates.com - and - Devraat Awasthi, Esq. Megan Lambert, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION Oklahoma City, OK 73113 Telephone: (405) 525-3831 E-mail: mlambert@acluok.org dawasthi@acluok.org - and - Spencer Amdur, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: samdur@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org GLOCK INC: Court Adopts Johnson's Proposed Forms of Class Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adopts the Plaintiff's proposed forms of class notice in the lawsuit styled STEVEN C. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. GLOCK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Having reviewed the parties' competing notice plans and forms of notice and related objections, Judge Orrick adopts the Plaintiff's proposed forms of notice developed in conjunction with Epiq, including the use of a postcard notice for the short form notice. Judge Orrick finds the Defendant's proposed notices are overly complex and do not capture the claims at issue in this case. "Consumer" as used in the class definition is not limited to consumers a defined in the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); there is no justification for including the CLRA's definition of consumer in the proposed notices. If the Defendant has specific, remaining objections to the text of the postcard/email or longform notices proposed by the Plaintiff, Judge Orrick holds that the parties were to hold one final meet and confer by May 19, 2025. If agreement cannot be reached, the parties will submit one filing by May 26, 2025, showing the Defendant's remaining objections to the Plaintiff's proposed notices in redline. The Defendant objects that the Plaintiff's proposal requires mailed opt-out forms. The Defendant points out that best practices now include allowing submission of opt-out forms electronically, for example, through the class website in addition to submission by physical mailing. Judge Orrick directs the Plaintiff to provide a sample opt-out form on the class website, and allow for opt-out forms to be submitted both electronically and through physical mailing. The Plaintiff does not propose sending mailed notice to the approximately 2 million individuals identified in the DOJ data. Instead, he proposes sending emails (and then postcard notices for the emails that are not deliverable) to only the 19,161 names maintained by the Defendant from its warranty records. The Plaintiff argues that the email/postcard notification combined with a broad, nationwide digital media campaign and print media campaign, will provide the best notice practicable. The Defendant objects and notes that mailed notice is the most effective form of notice where physical mailing address are available, as here. The Defendant also objects to a nationwide digital campaign as unnecessary (as mailing addresses are available) and overbroad (as not targeted to California). The Plaintiff suggests, but does not demonstrate, that mailed notice would not be efficient or effective because some unidentified portion of the records are "stale" and in some cases records are decades old. The Plaintiff's class notice expert also notes that some unspecified "sampling" of that data indicates the addresses "may not always be accurate or reliable." However, Judge Orrick points out, the Plaintiff does not identify what percentage of the DOJ records are "decades old" and provides no information on how much and what type of sample counsel conducted and what number or percentage of addresses came back as inaccurate. Absent a more persuasive showing that it would be ineffective and wasteful to send notice by mailed notice to all 2 million class members in the DOJ data, Judge Orrick agrees with the Defendant that mailed postcard notice would be the most effective form of notice for class members. Judge Orrick rules that the Plaintiff may, by May 19, 2025, submit a further evidentiary showing explaining what percentage of the DOJ data is "decades old" and explaining the sampling that was (or by then will be) conducted to give me a concrete understanding of how much of the DOJ data is stale or inaccurate. With more information and additional support from the Plaintiff's proposed notice administrator, Judge Orrick would be inclined to approve a notice plan that, for example, required mailed notice for only those addresses that were registered with the DOJ within the last 15, 10, or 5 years. And to be clear, Judge Orrick explains, that mailed notice would be the postcard proposed by the Plaintiff; postcard notices are widely accepted when they refer recipients to the class action's website, class counsel, and to the Court's docket for more information. With respect to the Plaintiff's proposed digital media campaign, Judge Orrick expects a digital media campaign could be helpful, especially for class members, who purchased the Defendant's products decades ago or who have inaccurate addresses in the DOJ record. However, the Plaintiff's current proposed digital media campaign is expressly nationwide, and not targeted to California. Judge Orrick rules that by May 19, 2025, the Plaintiff will propose a revised and refined digital media plan that targets California in order to fill any gaps in the DOJ data identified by the Plaintiff. The Defendant may file a response to the Plaintiff's further evidentiary showing regarding the DOJ data and any revised proposals regarding that data or the digital media campaign by May 26, 2025. The matter will then be under submission. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrshpxu4 from PacerMonitor.com. GOODRX HOLDINGS: June 12 Hearing to OK $25MM Deal in NCDA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- GoodRX Holdings, 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 on November 25, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement, with the plaintiffs in the Northern District of California class suits for $25.0 million, subject to approval by the court on June 12, 2025. Between February 2, 2023, and March 30, 2023, five individual plaintiffs filed five separate putative class actions lawsuits against Google, Meta, Criteo and GoodRX Holdings, Inc., alleging generally that the defendants have not adequately protected consumer privacy and that the defendants communicated consumer information to third parties, including the three co-defendants. Four of the plaintiffs allege common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Invasion of Privacy Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. One of these four plaintiffs additionally brings a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The fifth plaintiff brings claims for common-law unjust enrichment and violations of New York's General Business Law. Four of these cases were originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("NDCA) (Cases No. 3:23-cv-00501; 3:23-cv-00744; 3:23-cv-00940; and 4:23-cv-01293). One case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00943); however, that case was voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the NDCA (Case No. 3:23-cv-01508). These five matters have been consolidated and assigned to U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA. The court also set a briefing schedule for filing a single consolidated complaint, which the plaintiffs filed on May 21, 2023 (Case No. 3:23-cv-00501-AMO; the "NDCA Class Action Matter"), as well as motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration. In addition to the aforementioned claims, the plaintiffs in the now consolidated matter bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common law negligence and negligence per se, in each case, pleaded in the alternative. The plaintiffs are seeking various forms of monetary damages (such as statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and disgorgement of profits) as well as injunctive relief. Briefing on the motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration was completed on August 24, 2023. On October 27, 2023, six plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (Case No. 1:23-cv-24127-BB; the "SDFL Class Action Matter") against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of the same nationwide class as the NDCA Class Action Matter, substantially the same statutory and common law violation claims as alleged in that matter as well as claims based on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under California common law and the California constitution, invasion of privacy under New Jersey's Constitution, and violations of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Florida's Security of Communications Act, New York's Civil Rights Law and Stop Hack and Improve Electronic Data Security Act. The plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter seek various forms of monetary damages as well as injunctive and other unspecified equitable relief. On October 27, 2023, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter, on behalf of a nationwide settlement class that includes the NDCA Class Action Matter, which provides for a payment of $13.0 million by the Company. On October 30, 2023, the plaintiffs in the SDFL Class Action Matter filed a motion and memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and, on October 31, 2023, the SDFL granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to final approval of the court. Members of the class have the opportunity to opt-out of the class and commence their own actions. In response to the proposed settlement in the SDFL Class Action Matter, plaintiffs in the NDCA Class Action Matter filed (i) on November 1, 2023, a motion in the NDCA for an order to require the Company to cease litigation of, or alternatively file a motion to stay in, the SDFL Class Action Matter and enjoin the Company from seeking settlement with counsel other than plaintiffs' counsel in the NDCA Class Action Matter; and (ii) on November 2, 2023, a motion in the SDFL for that court to allow them to intervene and appear in the SDFL action, transfer the SDFL Class Action Matter to the NDCA and reconsider and deny its preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The SDFL has issued an order requiring the SDFL plaintiffs to, among other things, file a response to the NDCA plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the NDCA issued an order for the Company to show cause as to why the Company should not be sanctioned for an alleged failure to provide notification to the NDCA of the pendency of the SDFL Class Action Matter. The Company has filed its written response to this order on November 8, 2023. The NDCA held a hearing on November 14, 2023, and ordered parties to the litigation to participate in mediation. The parties participated in mediation on January 10, 2024, and agreed to participate in an additional day of mediation, which occurred on March 7, 2024. On December 3, 2024, the SDFL plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion to dismiss, with prejudice, which was approved by the court on December 4, 2024. On November 25, 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement, with the NDCA plaintiffs for $25.0 million, subject to approval by the court on June 12, 2025. According to the Company, based on the settlement agreement, an estimated probable loss of $25.0 million was recognized within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024, and remained accrued as of March 31, 2025. While this amount represents our best judgment of the probable loss based on the information currently available to the Company, it is subject to significant judgments and estimates and numerous factors beyond our control, including, without limitation, final approval of the court. In addition, while it is reasonably possible an incremental loss may have been incurred for the indemnification of certain parties named in the class action lawsuits, a loss, or a range of loss, is not reasonably estimable. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and upon final resolution of these matters, it is reasonably possible that the actual loss may differ from the Company's estimate, the Company said. GOODRX HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- GoodRX Holdings, 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 on November 25, 2024, that on April 23, 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted its motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit, without prejudice and with leave to amend. On April 22, 2024, Lisa Marie Barsuli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-3282). The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and equitable relief as well as interest, fees and costs. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and asserts that the Company and certain of its executive officers failed to disclose to investors the risk relating to a grocery chain taking actions that impacted acceptance of our discounted pricing for a subset of prescription drugs from PBMs, whose pricing the Company promotes on its platform (the "grocer issue"), which occurred late in the first quarter of 2022. As alleged in the complaint, when the Company disclosed the occurrence of the grocer issue, the Company's stock price fell, causing investor losses. On July 25, 2024, U.S. District Judge André Birotte Jr. appointed The Kalmanson Family as the lead plaintiff and approved selection of lead plaintiff's counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on November 19, 2024. On January 10, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, and the Company filed its response on February 11, 2025. Additionally, on various dates between May 23, 2024 and November 6, 2024, alleged stockholders Benjamin Solomon (Case No. 2:24-cv-04301), Joseph Caetano (Case No. 2:24-cv-06993), Colby Mayes (Case No. 2:24-cv-07264), Sharon Burgs (Case No. 2:24-cv-07281), and Stephen Bushansky (Case No. 2:24-cv-09611) each filed separate derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in each case, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former executive officers and directors. The derivative complaints assert various claims, including for violations of, and contribution under, the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and violations of insider trading laws. The claims in each of these derivative lawsuits are based on allegations substantially similar to those in the class action lawsuit and also allege that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls. The plaintiffs in these derivative lawsuits are seeking declaratory relief, monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement of alleged illegal profits and/or certain governance reforms. On December 20, 2024, plaintiffs in the derivative lawsuits agreed to consolidate the cases and stay the action pending the resolution of the securities class action's motion to dismiss. On February 20, 2025, the court granted the stipulation and consolidated the cases under Case No. 2:24-cv-04301-AB-JPR. On April 23, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit, without prejudice and with leave to amend. GORSUCH LTD: District of Utah Dismisses Pilkington Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah grants the Defendant's motion and dismisses the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit styled KRISTIN PILKINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GORSUCH, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00434-RJS (D. Utah). Before the Court is Defendant Gorsuch Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Having reviewed the Motion and associated briefing, the Court grants Gorsuch's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Although Gorsuch raises alternative grounds for dismissal, the Court limits its analysis to arguments relevant the exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction. Gorsuch is a specialty retailer that sells high-end, luxury winter sportswear, resort wear, and home accessories. Since at least Jan. 1, 2004, Gorsuch has offered its products for sale through physical catalogs and a website. As part of its business operations, the Plaintiff alleges Gorsuch maintains a vast digital database comprised of its customers' names, home addresses, and purchase histories (collectively, Private Purchase Information). To supplement its revenues, Gorsuch allegedly sells this Private Purchase Information and other categories of individualized data to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and other third parties without providing notice to its customers. In 2024, the Plaintiff placed purchase orders on Gorsuch's website. She claims she initiated her orders within Utah, and she claims Gorsuch completed the sales by shipping the products directly to her Utah home address. The Plaintiff also alleges Gorsuch failed to notify her that it would disclose her Private Purchase Information, and that she never authorized Gorsuch to do so. After completing these sales, Gorsuch allegedly shared her Private Purchase Information with various third parties for compensation. The Plaintiff initiated this proposed class action in June 2024, alleging Gorsuch violated Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic Personal Information Act (NISNPIA). In October 2024, Gorsuch filed the present Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). After the Motion was fully briefed, the Governor of Utah signed into law S.B. 150, which makes significant changes to NISNPIA's text. S.B. 150 was set to take effect on May 7, 2025. Because the amendment is relevant to the Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, inviting the parties to submit additional briefing on the effect of the NISNPIA amendment on the Court's jurisdiction and on Gorsuch's outstanding Motion. The deadline to respond to the court's Order has now passed, and the Court considers the parties responses in conjunction with their briefing on the Motion. Gorsuch argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must yield to the class action bar found in Section 203(3) of NISNPIA in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 559 U.S. 393 (2010) ("Shady Grove"). Gorsuch argues application of Section 203(3) deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims because, without a viable class action, the Plaintiff cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiff, on the other hand, insists this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) notwithstanding the amendments to NISNPIA because there are more than 100 class members, the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, and minimum diversity among the parties exists. The Court agrees with Gorsuch that the recent amendments to NISNPIA provide the Court with the evidence necessary to conclude that, under the Supreme Court's framework articulated in Shady Grove, applying of Rule 23 in this case would impermissibly abridge, enlarge, and modify Utah's substantive rights and remedies in violation of the Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. Section 2072(b)). Accordingly, Judge Shelby holds, Section 203(3) of NISNPIA applies in federal court and precludes the Plaintiff from maintaining her class action lawsuit. And without the ability to proceed as a class, Judge Shelby points out the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement necessary for this court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court grants Gorsuch's Motion. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fa67aea from PacerMonitor.com. GREYSTAR REAL: Padilla Consumer Suit Reassigned to District Judge ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CELINA PADILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a "Greystar," a limited liability company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00059-DAO (D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah reassigns the lawsuit to a district judge. Because this case is a proposed class action, Judge Oberg opines that it is not feasible to obtain consent from all parties to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Accordingly, this case will be reassigned to a district judge, with an automatic referral under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) to Judge Oberg, pursuant to DUCivR 72-3(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff Celina Padilla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint ("CAC") against Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC; GREP General Partner, LLC; Greystar Management Services, LLC; Greystar RS National, LLC; GREP Southwest, LLC (collectively "Greystar" or "Defendants"). The lawsuit is a class action lawsuit arising out of Greystar's alleged deceptive, unfair, and illegal hidden or junk Utility Reimbursement fees ("Utility Fees") charged to tenants since at least 2019 to the present. The Plaintiff brings this action because of the Defendant's false marketing, false advertising, and breaches of consumer protection statutes. The Defendant is a self-proclaimed leading, fully integrated real estate company offering expertise in investment management, development, and management of rental housing properties globally. Greystar touts themselves as a company with a winning strategy and a focus on people guided by the Mission of enriching the lives they touch by doing things the right way. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhvmsy5w from PacerMonitor.com. GROCERY OUTLET: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 30, 2025, a federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned Liberato v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 25-cv-00957, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. and certain of its former officers purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 7, 2023 and May 7, 2024 (the "Liberato Lawsuit"). On March 28, 2025, a second and related federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned Cavanaugh v. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 25-cv-2886, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against the same defendants on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between August 8, 2023 and October 29, 2024 (the "Cavanaugh Lawsuit," and together with the Liberato Lawsuit, the "Class Action Lawsuits"). The Class Action Lawsuits allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's transition to new and upgraded internal systems. The Class Action Lawsuits seek remedies under the Exchange Act, including an undisclosed amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and other costs. On March 31, 2025, the plaintiff who filed the Cavanaugh Lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate both actions and to be appointed as lead plaintiff. On April 28, 2025, a federal stockholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Conners v. Sheedy, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03697, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against certain of the Company's directors and two of its former officers purportedly on behalf of the Company. On May 2, 2025, a second federal stockholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Jackson v. Lindberg, et. al., Case No. 25-cv-03843, was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against certain of the Company's directors and two of its former officers purportedly on behalf of the Company. These stockholder derivative lawsuits are collectively referred to as the "Derivative Lawsuits." The Derivative Lawsuits allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on similar allegations to those at issue in the Class Action Lawsuits. The Derivative Lawsuits seek, among other relief, undisclosed damages, restitution, fees and other costs, and the institution of corporate governance reforms. The Company intends to defend the Class Action Lawsuits and the Derivative Lawsuits vigorously, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. H & M: Ventura Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA VENTURA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Victoria Ventura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-2115, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who worked as retail clothing store employees in New York for H & M, asserts a single claim against H & M, for failure to pay timely wages in violation of New York Labor Law ("NYLL") section 191(1)(a). On Mar. 8, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted on Mar. 24, 2025. The Court noted that because H & M's proffers are not meaningfully disputed, it has carried its burden of demonstrating that its principal place of business is located in New York. Therefore, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), it is a citizen of New York. "The Court must decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA because two-thirds or more of the class, and the only Defendant, are citizens of the state in which the action was filed," ruled the Court. "The complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice." The appellate case is entitled Ventura v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P., Case No. 25-1025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VICTORIA VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 HAL HAYS CONSTRUCTION: Selden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hal Hays Construction, Inc. The case is styled as Dustin Selden, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Hal Hays Construction, Inc., Case No. BCV-25-101767 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hal Hays Construction -- https://www.halhays.com/ -- is a large, family-owned/Native American owned heavy civil General Contractor out of Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Lee, Esq. Robert J Drexler, Esq. Robert S. Myong, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-556-4811 Fax: 310-943-0396 Email: Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com robert.myong@capstonelawyers.com HARRIET CARTER: Popa Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY POPA is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harriet Carter Gifts Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00450, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against the Defendants alleging that they violated the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) of 1978 by unlawfully intercepting data of online shoppers. On June 14, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike concise statement of material facts, Third Declaration of Grigori (Greg) Humphreys. On Mar. 24, 2025, Judge William S. Stickman entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The Court concluded that there is no violation of WESCA and summary judgment in the Defendants' favor is warranted. The appellate case is entitled Ashley Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1760, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ASHLEY POPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nicholas Colella, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. Connor P. Hayes, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Defendants-Appellees HARRIET CARTER GIFTS INC., et al. are represented by: Sarah A. Ballard, Esq. Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 764-4052 (303) 861-0600 - and – Carrie H. Dettmer Slye, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 852-2626 - and – David W. Bertoni, I, Esq. Eamonn R.C. Hart, Esq. David Swetnam-Burland, Esq. BRANN & ISAACSON 113 Lisbon Street P.O. Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243 Telephone: (207) 786-3566 (978) 257-0913 - and – Devin J. Chwastyk, Esq. Christian Wolgemuth, Esq. MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 237-5482 (717) 237-5371 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Wins Bid to Bifurcate in O'Hailpin, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Helen Gillmor of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.'s motion to bifurcate trial between liability and damages in the case captioned as RIKI O'HAILPIN; NINA ARIZUMI; ROBERT ESPINOSA; ERWIN YOUNG; PUANANI BADIANG; SABRINA FRANKS; RONALD LUM; DAN SAIKI; BRANDEE AUKAI, Plaintiffs, vs. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.; HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC. Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00532-HG-WRP (D. Haw.). Plaintiffs are nine separate individuals who were employed or remain employed in various positions by Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. In August 2021, Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and its parent company Defendant Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. implemented a mandatory vaccination policy in the midst of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs each requested an accommodation from the Hawaiian Defendants, seeking an exemption from the vaccination policy. Plaintiffs claimed that they needed an accommodation based on their religious beliefs and/or medical needs. The Hawaiian Defendants denied Plaintiffs' requests for exemptions from the vaccination policy. According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs were offered leave without pay status in lieu of vaccination or they were terminated if they declined. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Hawaiian Defendants, claiming failure-to-accommodate their religions and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and failure-to-accommodate their disabilities and retaliation pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Defendants seek to bifurcate trial between liability and damages. Plaintiffs oppose. In this case, allowing the Parties and the Court to conserve resources and potentially avoid unnecessary proceedings favors bifurcation between liability and damages. The Court finds resolution of liability and, in particular, the undue hardship defense would minimize expense and will not unduly burden either Party. According to the Court, Plaintiffs will maintain their right to a jury trial on whether Defendants failed to accommodate them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. There are no equitable claims to be tried separately. The damages phase of the trial will also be conducted by jury trial if liability is found by the jury in the first phase, the Court adds. The Court will bifurcate trials between liability and damages phases. The Court also elects to hold separate trials pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The Plaintiffs will be grouped according to the similar causes of action and allegations in the Complaint. The Court will hold the first trial of two individual Plaintiffs, Pilots Robert Espinosa and Dan Saiki, to ensure due process and avoid juror confusion. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pkv9qi HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Loses Bid to Seal Docs in Story, et al. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Samuel J. Horovitz of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Heartland Payment Systems LLC's motion for leave to seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.11 in the the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, etc., Defendant, CASE NO. 3:19-cv-724-TJC-SJH (M.d. Fla.). On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. They filed their Motion for Approval in the public record, but with certain redactions. Contemporaneously, they filed a motion to seal, seeking to file the complete and unredacted Motion for Approval under seal. In the Prior Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs sought sealing on the sole basis that Defendant, Heartland Payment Systems, LLC, had designated material confidential under a Stipulated Protective Order. However, they took no position on whether good cause supported the sealing, instead deferring to Heartland to carry its burden to demonstrate sealing was warranted. On April 18, 2025, the Court denied the Prior Motion to Seal. The Court thus directed the Clerk to unseal the unredacted Motion for Approval at docket entry 272-1. The Court stayed such unsealing for 14 days in accordance with Local Rule 1.1. Heartland filed the instant Motion on April 28, 2025. In the Motion, Heartland requests that the Court allow it to maintain under seal limited redactions in Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval. Heartland contends that sealing is necessary because the information proposed for redaction and sealing is derived from confidential documents and is confidential and sensitive such that it is unique to Heartland and not of concern to the public. But Heartland's conclusory say-so is insufficient to carry its burden, overcome the presumption of public access, and justify sealing, the Court finds. Heartland seeks reconsideration of the Court's April 18, 2025, Order based on an untimely supporting memorandum it filed without leave. According to the the Court, such relief is inappropriate. Heartland has not acknowledged, much less satisfied, the heavy burden for reconsideration. The Court concludes the Motion is not properly raised and is untimely. Heartland does not seek to file anything new under seal. Absent a timely motion for relief as set forth in Local Rule 1.11(d), within 14 days hereof, the Clerk is directed to unseal docket entries 272-1 and 276-1, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8EI377 from PacerMonitor.com. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION: Phoenix Can Distribute Residual Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David G. Estudillo of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiffs' motion to allow Phoenix Settlement Administrators to perform additional services in the distribution of residual settlement funds to class and collective members in the case captioned as MICHAEL RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION SERVICE INC, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05438-DGE (W.D. Wash.). On March 29, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class and collective action settlement. The Court confirmed the appointment of Phoenix as the Settlement Administrator and approved the National Employment Law Project as the cy pres recipient. Phoenix seeks to perform additional skip-tracing as a final effort to reach class and collective members who are entitled to receive funds under the settlement approved by the Court. Plaintiffs propose Phoenix conduct an additional skip-trace of all remaining 191 uncashed checks to obtain updated addresses, reissue replacement checks to all 191 Participating Class members, and issue a reminder postcard. Phoenix anticipates this process will amount to $2,596.69 in costs and asks for these costs to be deducted from the uncashed funds. Plaintiffs request the Court allow any uncashed funds after the reissuance of checks be paid to the NELP. The Court finds it appropriate that after affording class members every opportunity to claim their allotted settlement funds, Phoenix pay the unclaimed settlement funds to the NELP. The settlement bore out of alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the wage and hour laws of Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim Defendants failed to compensate them appropriately, failed to provide them with proper meal and rest breaks, and required them to incur work-related expenses. The mission of NELP aligns with the purpose of the FLSA and its corresponding state laws, and is accordance with the interests of the silent class members. And so, in this case, NELP is an appropriate beneficiary of the unclaimed funds, the Court concludes. The Court orders as follows: 1. As soon as practicable following the date of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall conduct an additional skip-trace of all uncashed checks to obtain a more-recent address for Participating Class Members where possible. 2. Following the skip-trace and as soon as practicable, Phoenix will issue replacement checks to all Participating Class Members whose checks remain uncashed as of the date of this Order. 3. After issuance of replacement checks and during the check cashing period, Phoenix will issue a reminder postcard to any individuals who fail to negotiate the replacement payments. 4. The Court approves the requested additional expenses of $2,596.69 associated with these additional steps to be paid to Phoenix, and such additional expenses shall be deducted from the uncashed funds prior to reissuance of payments. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSNdLL from PacerMonitor.com. INTERTAPE POLYMER: $2.5MM Settlement in Evans Suit Has Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida grants final approval of a $2.5 million settlement in the lawsuit styled DANIEL EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERTAPE POLYMER CORP., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01042-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla.). The parties jointly move for final approval of their proposed settlement agreement, which includes a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and a Rule 23 class action. Class counsel moves unopposed for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Daniel Evans, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, sues his employer, Intertape Polymer Corporation, for alleged violations of the FLSA and for unjust enrichment. Evans alleges that Intertape failed to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of determining an employee's overtime pay and unlawfully rounded employees' time. He alleges that the rounding policy, in each workweek in which he worked forty hours or more, resulted in a deprivation of overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA. In each workweek in which he worked less than forty hours, he alleges that the rounding policy deprived him of straight time wages, otherwise known as "gap time." After mediation, the parties reached a settlement of the FLSA and unjust enrichment claims. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Intertape must pay $2.5 million. A third of this amount will be allocated for attorney's fees and costs, and the rest, $1,666,666.67, will be allocated for settlement payments. Eighty percent of the $1,666,666.67 will be allocated for settling FLSA claims and twenty percent for settling unjust enrichment (or Rule 23) claims. Judge Mizelle preliminarily approved the settlement and conditionally certified a Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective action. Judge Mizelle directed the parties to provide notice to the potential class and collective action members of their right to object, opt into the FLSA collective action, and opt out of the Rule 23 class action. On Jan. 31, 2025, the Settlement Administrator sent by first class mail the class notice to all members of the settlement class. The settlement administrator successfully mailed 4,131, or 96.81%, of the class notices. Proposed class members had until March 17, 2025, to opt out of the Rule 23 settlement, opt into the FLSA collective action, and return a written objection to the settlement. Twenty-five class members opted out of the Rule 23 portion of the settlement and no class member objected. 1,111 current or former employees validly opted into the FLSA collective action. At the completion of the notice period, the parties moved for final approval of the settlement and class counsel moved for attorney's fees and costs. On April 23, 2025, Judge Mizelle held a fairness hearing to consider the motions. Class members were informed of the opportunity to attend the hearing. None chose to do so. After review, Judge Mizelle concludes that the proposed agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. As for the Rule 23(e)(2) factors, Evans and the class counsel have adequately represented the class and the parties negotiated the proposed settlement at arm's length. Also, the proposed settlement affords adequate and equitable class-wide relief. The expected recovery for each class member turns on "their number of work weeks," and the settlement amount--$2,500,000--represents over half the projected amount of Intertape's exposure. Judge Mizelle notes that in section 15 of the proposed agreement, the parties provide that "[t]his Agreement, including any attachments, may not be changed, altered, or modified, except in a writing signed by the Parties and their counsel." Judge Mizelle says this provision could be read to allow the parties to circumvent the judicial approval process by altering the agreement post-approval. Therefore, Judge Mizelle will strike that provision. With that one caveat, the Court approves the FLSA settlement. Class counsel seek an award of $808,549.65 in attorney's fees, which is almost a third of the settlement fund. This requested award is 3.296 times higher than class counsel's combined total lodestar of $247,942.90. Judge Mizelle notes that courts in this circuit have approved percentage fee awards in both Rule 23 and FLSA cases, including cases in which class counsel seek an award totaling a third of the settlement fund, citing Camden I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir. 1991). In the light of this trend, the Court grants class counsel's motion. Class counsel also request $24,783.68 in litigation expenses. This includes expert fees, mediation fees, and targeted marketing. Judge Mizelle finds that these costs are reasonable, and, therefore, grants class counsel's request. Upon review of the record, the motions, and the argument presented at the hearing and with the modification, Judge Mizelle concludes that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Judge Mizelle also concludes that the requested attorney's fees and costs are warranted in this case. Accordingly, the Court grants the Joint Motion for Final Approval subject to the one caveat. Judge Mizelle strikes the first sentence of section 15 of the proposed settlement agreement. The settlement is otherwise approved, and the parties are directed to implement the settlement according to its terms and conditions. The Court grants the Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Class counsel is awarded $833,333.33 in attorney's fees and costs. The case is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment that will read "Judgment is entered in accord with the Settlement Agreement. All Rule 23 class members who received notice and did not opt out are bound. All FLSA collective action members who opted in are bound." The Clerk must also terminate any pending deadlines and close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2wwvntb3 from PacerMonitor.com. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Stays Class Cert Briefing in Carr ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carr v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06557 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to stay class certification briefing. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. The Defendant provides products for newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, and sun protection.[CC] KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Oie's Bid for Settlement Approval Due on June 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled MAHLON OIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAMAN & CUSIMANO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00775-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin directs the Plaintiff to seek preliminary approval of class action settlement by June 4, 2025. Plaintiff Mahlon Oie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Class members"), brings this action to challenge the actions of Defendant Kaman & Cusimano LLC, with regard to its attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the Plaintiff, and this conduct caused him damages. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Waukesha, Wisconsin, from whom a debt collector sought to collect a consumer debt, which was due and owing or alleged to be due and owing from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, with a principal place of business located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that engages in debt collection activities in the State of Wisconsin. Judge Stadtmueller says the Plaintiff's notice indicated that the parties would soon provide documents in support of the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Over two months later, the parties have not yet filed anything, Judge Stadtmueller points out. Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller directs the Plaintiff to move the Court for preliminary approval of class action settlement, with supporting papers, including the underlying settlement, on or before June 4, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwanjrjf from PacerMonitor.com. KRIGER: Third Distribution of Settlement Checks OK'd in Almada Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Michelle M. Pettit of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in substantial part the plaintiff's unopposed motion for a third distribution from the residual common fund in the case captioned as JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated class members, Plaintiff, v. KRIGER LAW FIRM, A.P.C., Defendant, Case No.: 19-cv-2109-MMP (S.D. Cal.).and final approval of cy pres beneficiaries In 2019, Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Kriger Law Firm, A.P.C. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code sections 1788 to 1788.32. In January 2023, the Court issued final approval of the parties' Settlement. Plaintiff now moves the Court to approve a third distribution from the Common Fund to the 159 Settlement Class Members who cashed their second distribution check. In support of the current motion, Plaintiff filed a declaration from the Settlement Administrator explaining the administrative cost of completing a third distribution is $2,717, so a third distribution is anticipated to result in an additional payment of approximately $17.98. In addition, Plaintiff seeks approval of two cy pres recipients, the National Consumer Law Center and Public Justice, for distribution of any unclaimed funds remaining after the third distribution. Plaintiff asserts because it is economically feasible to conduct a third distribution to the 159 Settlement Class Members who cashed their second distribution check, a third distribution must occur before a distribution to the proposed cy pres beneficiaries is appropriate. The Court finds a third distribution is administratively feasible given the amount of uncashed funds ($5,576.40) remaining in the Common Fund following the second distribution. This amount would cover the administrative costs associated with the third distribution in the amount of $2,717. The Court also agrees the third distribution should be limited to the 159 Settlement Class Members who cashed their second distribution Settlement checks. Accordingly, a third distribution would result in a non-de minimis payment of approximately $17.98 to participating Settlement Class Members. A third distribution is also consistent with the Settlement's terms and directly benefits class members; thus, it is preferable to a cy pres distribution in these circumstances, the Court concludes. No later than June 20, 2025, a third distribution in equal parts shall be made from the remainder of the Common Fund to the 159 Settlement Class Members who cashed their second distribution Settlement checks. The Court approves the NCLC as a cy pres recipient. The Court finds NCLC is an appropriate cy pres recipient, as a distribution of any funds remaining after a third distribution would have a direct and substantial nexus to the interests of absent Class Members in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4x1bBx from PacerMonitor.com. L'OREAL USA: Court to Consolidate Six Related Cases --------------------------------------------------- Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York intends to consolidate the following related cases: 1. CIARA NOAKES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:24-cv-02735-AT; 2. LATIFAH ABEDNEGO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:24-cv-03998-AT; 3. LUCINDA O'DEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:24-cv-08352-AT; 4. ELLEN PAINTER and ROBERT HIGHTOWER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:25-cv-03137-AT; 5. HOLLY GROSSENBACHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA, Inc., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:25-cv-01497-AT; and 6. JENNIFER SNOW, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:25-cv-03583-AT. The Court lifts the stay in case numbers 24 Civ. 2735, 24 Civ. 3998, 24 Civ. 8352, 25 Civ. 1497, and 25 Civ. 3137. Pursuant to the Court's Dec. 10, 2024 Order, Plaintiffs Ciara Noakes, Latifah Abednego, Lucinda O'Dea, Ellen Painter, Robert Hightower, Holly Grossenbacher, And Jennifer Snow and Defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. submit the following Joint Statement regarding the status of the motion to consolidate and the motions to transfer: 1. On Dec. 10, 2024, the Court entered an Order staying the Noakes, Abednego, and O'Dea actions pending the issuance of the last transfer order in other jurisdictions relating to the Painter, Grossenbacher, and Snow actions. 2. Painter v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. was transferred from District of Hawaii (Case No. 1:24-cv-00512-MWJS-KJM) to the Southern District of New York on Feb. 20, 2025. It was assigned case number 1:25-cv-01497 and referred to Your Honor on April 15, 2025. Judge Torres accepted the case as related on April 16, 2025. On April 17, 2025, Judge Torres stayed Painter pending resolution of the pending motion to transfer in Snow v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00110-MWJS (D. Hawaii). 3. Also, on Feb. 20, 2025, Grossenbacher v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. was transferred from the District of Louisiana to this District. It was assigned case number 1:25-cv-01497 and referred to Your Honor on February 21, 2025. Judge Torres stayed Grossenbacher pending resolution of the pending motion to transfer in Snow v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv00110-MWJS (D. Hawaii). 4. Defendant's motion to transfer the Snow matter to this Court was granted on April 23, 2025. It was assigned case number 1:25-cv-03583 and referred to Your Honor on April 30, 2025. Judge Torres accepted that case as related on May 1, 2025. 6. Given the duration that the above-captioned matters have been pending and the potential that other cases may continue to be filed in other jurisdictions, the Parties respectfully request that the Court unstay the Noakes, Abednego, O'Dea, Painter, and Grossenbacher cases, and order that Plaintiffs file a motion for consolidation of the related cases within 14 days of the Court lifting all stays. 7. Plaintiffs are presently discussing potential leadership structures, and intend to submit one or more motions for appointment of interim class counsel concurrent with their motion to consolidate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eut65C from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc. : Thomas Mayhew, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone (415) 954-4400 E-mail: tmayhew@fbm.com LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: American Acceptance Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF SC is taking an appeal from a court order in its lawsuit entitled American Acceptance Corporation of SC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John Gietz, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:98-cv-01517-CKK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from Lexington County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of South Carolina, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the due process rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as a claim and delivery cause of action under state law. On Mar. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Apr. 4, 2024. On Mar. 26, 2025, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an Order granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's federal claim was dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims were remanded to state court for further adjudication. The Court held that the Plaintiff has failed to state a Section 1983 procedural due process claim. The Court, hence, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim. "Because this issue is dispositive, it is unnecessary for the Court to address the other arguments advanced by the parties," ruled the Court. The appellate case is captioned American Acceptance Corporation of SC v. John Gietz, Case No. 25-1448, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant AMERICAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF SC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Bradley Studemeyer, Esq. STUDEMEYER LAW FIRM, PC 7478 Carlisle Street Irmo, SC 29063 Telephone: (803) 393-4399 Defendants-Appellees JOHN GIETZ, et al. are represented by: Frederick Newman Hanna, Jr., Esq. Daniel C. Plyler, Esq. Austin Tyler Reed, Esq. SMITH ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC 3200 Devine Street Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (803) 254-5445 LG ELECTRONICS: Abrego Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Abrego and Virginia Shamel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:25-at-00615 (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") as a result of the Defendant's deceitful business practice regarding express warranties. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased Defendant's Products. The Defendant was engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and selling its products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM. PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (800) 500-0301 Facsimile: (800) 500-0301 Email: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com LOEWS CORPORATION: Faces Portillo Antitrust Suit in WA Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Loews Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2025, that on February 20, 2024, Jeanette Portillo filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. It asserts antitrust claims under the Sherman Act. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 17, 2024. Loews Corporation is a holding company primarily in fire, marine and casualty insurance. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, is into the operation of a chain of hotels. LOEWS CORPORATION: Faces Segal Antitrust Suit in Washington Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loews Corporation 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 March 1, 2024, Ryan Segal filed a putative class action against Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It asserts antitrust claims against defendants under the Sherman Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 24, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by no later than April 28, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Segal filed a third amended complaint alleging that Loews Hotels Holdings Corporation and other defendants violated the Sherman Act. Loews Corporation is a holding company primarily in fire, marine and casualty insurance. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, is into the operation of a chain of hotels. LOOK BOTH WAYS: Rashley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Look Both Ways Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Kyle Butler Rashley, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Look Both Ways Insurance LLC doing business as: Millenium Health Advisors, Case No. 9:25-cv-80587-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Look Both Ways Insurance LLC doing business as Millenium Health Advisors -- https://www.millenniumhealthadvisors.com/ -- offer free services to any American looking for an efficient way to find the best affordable healthcare coverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com LOUD AUDIO: Beven Sues Over Deceitful Business Practice ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Beven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOUD AUDIO, LLC d/b/a MACKIE,Case No. 2:25-cv-04352 (C.D. Cal., May 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("SBA"), and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") as a result of the Defendant's deceitful business practice regarding express warranties. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Products. The Defendant engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and selling its products--including the products purchased by Plaintiff and the public--directly and through a system of marketers, retailers, and distributors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM. PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (800) 500-0301 Facsimile: (800) 500-0301 Email: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com MASIMO AMERICAS: Pleasants Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Pleasants, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASIMO AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 30-2025-01482878-CU-NP-CXC – ROA (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., May 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff and at least other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant ("Class Members"). On May 6, 2025, Defendant Masimo file a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") informing the SEC of a cyberattack that it identified on April 27, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). According to Defendant, the Data Breach caused interruption to its systems including that "certain of the Company's manufacturing facilities have been operating at less than normal levels, and the Company's ability to process, fulfill, and ship customer orders timely has been temporarily impacted." Indeed, the attack reportedly included a ransomware attack affecting its on-premises information systems Defendant's CEO also admitted in a quarterly earnings call that the Data Breach disrupted the company's website and several computer systems, but the company cautioned that the full scope was not yet known. The Defendant here apparently did not have such basic safeguards in place because it did not identify any of the malicious activity leading up to the deployment of ransomware—which is the final step of the double-extortion cyber attack and is only done after the hacker successfully exfiltrates the data it has stolen. Moreover, because the hacker apparently had unfettered access and only was caught when it purposely announced itself by deploying ransomware, the hacker's published 61 MB of sample data is likely a small fraction of the data it has successfully stolen. Because of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was provided to Defendant. Masimo Americas, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com MDL 3035: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Retirement Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra requests that the Court set schedule for briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel on May 7, 2025. No briefing schedule has been set for this motion. Symetra met and conferred with the other parties over email on May 13, 2025, to work out a briefing schedule for this motion. All of the parties agreed to (or expressed no opposition to) the following briefing schedule: -- June 6, 2025: Deadline for any oppositions to Motion for Class Certification -- June 27, 2025: Deadline for any replies in support of Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gMapwF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott Abeles, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Bellows Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management International, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Bellows, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Management International, Inc. a/k/a Banfield Pet Hospital, Case No. 25STCV14247 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Medical Management International, Inc. also known as Banfield Pet Hospital -- https://www.banfield.com/ -- is a privately owned company based in Vancouver, Washington, United States, that operates veterinary clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1 California St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111-5470 Phone: 415-638-8800 Fax: 415-638-8810 Email: jahan@post.harvard.edu MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Fed. Securities Class Suit Pending in Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust 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 9, 2025, that a federal securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-00486). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its tenants. On September 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff thereafter moved the Court to alter its judgment. That motion has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the Court. Medical Properties is a real estate investment trust that invests in healthcare facilities subject to NNN lease. MERRILL LYNCH: July 11 Stock Loan Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------------- All persons and entities who, directly or through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a borrower or lender from January 1, 2012 until November 17, 2017 may be part of a pending class action A Notice of Pendency has been given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to inform class members of a class action lawsuit that is now pending in the Court against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to block and boycott new offerings that would have increased competition and improved the efficiency and transparency of the market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. All Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and deny they did anything wrong. The purpose of this new notice is to inform class members that the Court has ordered that the action proceed against non-settling Prime Broker Defendant Merrill Lynch as a class action, on behalf of the Class defined below. This notice relates to a new case development that will impact your rights regardless of your prior participation or exclusion from prior settlements in the case. The litigation "Class" certified by the Court consists of: All persons and entities who, directly or through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a borrower from the prime brokerage businesses of the U.S.-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants,1 or at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a lender of Hard-to-Borrow stock to the U.S.-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants, from January 1, 2012 until November 17, 2017. Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, as well as Citadel LLC, Two Sigma Investments, PDT Partners, Renaissance Technologies LLC, TGS Management, Voloridge Investment Management, and the D.E. Shaw Group and their corporate parents, subsidiaries, and wholly owned affiliates, as well as any federal governmental entity, any judicial officer presiding over this action, and any juror assigned to this action. There are two Subclasses: "End-User Subclass": All persons and entities within the class who, directly or through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a borrower from the prime brokerage businesses of the U.S.-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants during the Class Period; and The "Beneficial Owner Subclass": All persons and entities within the class who, directly or through an agent, entered into at least 100 U.S. Stock Loan Transactions as a lender of Hard-to-Borrow stock to the U.S-based entities of the Prime Broker Defendants during the Class Period. Your Options: Do Nothing: If you do nothing and you qualify as a Class Member, you will remain a member of the Class and be bound by all and judgments in the Action. If any money is awarded to the Class, you may be eligible to receive a share of that money. If you remain in the Class, you may not sue the Defendants on your own behalf with regard to any of the issues in this Action. Exclude Yourself: If you exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments in this Action, or be eligible to share in any recovery obtained in this Action. You will preserve your rights, if any, to individually sue the Defendants about the same claims asserted in the Action. If you wish to exclude yourself, you must submit by U.S. first class mail or deliver a written request to the Notice Administrator so that it is received by July 11, 2025. Please do not contact the Court regarding this Notice. Inquiries concerning this Notice or any other questions by Class Members should be directed to: Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corp. c/o Epiq P.O. Box 2057 Portland, OR 97208-2057 Tel: 1-888-890-9826 Email: MerrillLynchCertifiedClass@StockLoanSettlements.com Website: www.MerrillLynchCertifiedClass.StockLoanSettlements.com More detailed information about your rights and options can be found at www.MerrillLynchCertifiedClass.StockLoanSettlements.com or by calling toll-free 1-888-890-9826. "Prime Broker Defendants" means Credit Suisse Group AG; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund, Inc.; Credit Suisse Prime Securities Services (USA) LLC; Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC; and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. (merged into Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC as of June 12, 2017); J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; J.P. Morgan Prime, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Strategic Securities Lending Corp.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley Capital Management, LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc.; Prime Dealer Services Corp.; Strategic Investments I, Inc.; UBS AG; UBS Americas Inc.; UBS Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc.; and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. URL: www.MerrillLynchCertifiedClass.StockLoanSettlements.com MODIVCARE INC: All Metro Continues to Defend Caregivers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ModivCare 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 8, 2025, that All Metro Home Care Services of New York, one of the Company's PCS segment subsidiaries, continues to defend itself from live-ins caregivers labor class suit in the New York Court of Appeals. Since 2017, one of the Company's PCS segment subsidiaries, All Metro Home Care Services of New York, Inc. d/b/a All Metro Health Care ("All Metro"), has been subject to a class action lawsuit in state court claiming that, among other things, All Metro failed to properly pay live-in caregivers who stay in patients' homes for 24 hours per day ("live-ins"). The Company pays live-ins for 13 hours per day as supported through a written opinion letter from the New York State Department of Labor ("NYSDOL"). The New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) in a similar case involving this issue issued an order in 2019 that agreed with the NYSDOL's interpretation to pay live-ins for 13 hours per day instead of 24 hours if certain conditions were being met. Notwithstanding the court of appeals' order in the similar case, the parties to date have been unable to settle their dispute through mediation or otherwise, and therefore discovery in the matter is continuing. If the plaintiffs prove successful in this class action lawsuit, All Metro may be liable for back wages and liquidated damages dating back to November 2011. All Metro believes that it is and has been in compliance in all material respects with the laws and regulations covering pay for live-in caregivers (including the conditions described by the New York Court of Appeals in its order), intends to continue to defend itself vigorously with respect to this matter, and the Company does not believe in any event that the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, liquidity, financial condition or results of operations. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company that provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions for public and private payors and their members. MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Kalera Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ModivCare 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 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kalera federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On January 29, 2025, a class action complaint for purported violation of federal securities laws was filed by Dinesh Kalera, individually and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 3, 2022 and September 15, 2024 (the "Alleged Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and three of its officers who served as chief financial officer of the Company during the Alleged Class Period. The complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and asserts, among other things, that the Company's public statements concerning its NEMT segment accounts receivable collections efforts and effectiveness, cash flow results, and contractual payment and collection terms were materially false and misleading or contained material omissions. The Company denies the allegations in all respects and believes its public disclosure at all times has been true, correct and complete in all material respects in compliance with all federal securities and other laws and intends to defend itself vigorously in this case. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company that provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions for public and private payors and their members. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Lowe Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Lowe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC. d/b/a MONEYLION, Case No. 153635/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04098. On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff James Lowe served MoneyLion with a Summons and Complaint, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, alleging exclusively federal claims relating to MoneyLion's offering of Instacash: alleged violations of the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James Kim, Esq. Kaitland M. Kennelly, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 Phone: (212) 479-6000 Email: jameskim@cooley.com kkennelly@cooley.com MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley 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 it is currently defending itself in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al." Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the company, along with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDO). Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, treble damages. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 5, 2023, defendants sought leave to appeal this ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted leave to appeal that decision. Morgan Stanley is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments—Institutional Securities, Wealth Management and Investment Management. Morgan Stanley, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides a wide variety of products and services to a large and diversified group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. MSC SHIP: Bid to Exclude Crosson's Testimony in Brown Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON J. BROWN, v. MSC SHIP MANAGEMENT, LTD., MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING CO., and MERIDIAN 7 LTD, Case No. 4:23-cv-00182-LGW-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Ray entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Joseph Crosson. Crosson's opinions that "some degree of paint blistering and rust stains were also evident on the lower section steel step treads—indications of disrepair" and that "the lower five steps of the gangway did not have a handrail on either side of the gangway" are excluded. The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Katharine Sweeney is granted, in part and denied, in part. Sweeney's opinions critiquing the design or manufacturing of the gangway, opining on what the Plaintiff, or any longshoreman, would have noticed, discussing how different handrails would have prevented the Plaintiff's fall, discussing the grip or friction of the gangway, or opining who retained control of the gangway are excluded to the extent set forth in this order. The Plaintiff's motion to exclude is granted, in part and denied, in part. The Defendants' expert Marc Fazioli's opinion (e) is excluded. The case involves a slip and fall that occurred while Plaintiff, a longshoreman, was descending a gangway to disembark the M/V MSC Gayane. The Plaintiff alleges his fall was caused by two distinct hazards: "worn tread on the lower steps and an improperly rigged lower handrail." He brought negligence-based claims under section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), arguing that the Defendants' negligence gave rise to the safety hazards that caused the Plaintiff's accident and resulting injury. MSC is an international shipping line. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UzzMzf at no extra charge.[CC] MURPHY REHAB: Filing for Conditional Certification Due August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA FLEMING, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. MURPHY REHABILITATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00206-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W. Carleton Metcalf entered pretrial order and case management plan as follows: -- All discovery shall be complete no later than May 1, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall provide reports from expert witnesses pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) by Jan. 5, 2026. -- The Defendant shall provide reports from expert witnesses by Feb. 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file a conditional certification motion no later than Aug. 15, 2025. -- All other motions except motions in limine and motions to continue shall be filed no later than July 1, 2026. -- The "Ready Date" for trial is Dec. 7, 2026. Murphy is a rehabilitation and nursing home facility. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6QUfNU at no extra charge.[CC] NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY ------------------------------------------------------------------- NAPCO Security Technologies, 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 29, 2023, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The action, captioned "Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company’s quarterly reports and earnings releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and an amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2024. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 26, 2024. On April 11, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Section 11 and Section 12 claims brought against the individual defendants were dismissed; the remaining claims survived the motion to dismiss. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NATIONAL GRID: Bid for Bench Trial Tossed in Nightingale Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel Gorton entered an order denying Defendants' motion for bench trial. The case involves debt collection calls made to the Plaintiff which were allegedly harassing and in excess of the number allowed by state regulation. National Grid distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2LMkv8 at no extra charge.[CC] NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Putney Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neighbors Credit Union. The case is styled as Roxanne Putney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Neighbors Credit Union, Case No. 4:25-cv-00692-SRC (E.D. Mo., May 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Neighbors Federal Credit Union -- https://www.neighborsfcu.org/ -- has been a full-service financial institution, serving members throughout the Baton Rouge area for over 70 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE: Wilson Files Suit in Ga. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neurological Institute of Savannah & Center for Spine, P.C. The case is styled as Glenn Wilson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Neurological Institute of Savannah & Center for Spine, P.C., Case No. STCV25-01541 (Ga. State Ct., Chatham Cty., May 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Tort. The Neurosurgical & Spine Institute of Savannah -- https://neurologicalinstitute.com/ -- is one of the largest private neurosurgical practices on the east coast.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Conn, Esq. CONN LAW FIRM 119 W. Perry Street Savannah, GA 31401 Phone: (912) 373-8642 NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Labor Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the class action lawsuit captioned as as Kaira Imari Hatten v. New Direction Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02497-RGK (C.D. Cal.) to the state court. On Feb. 11, 2025, Kaira Imari Hatten filed a putative class action Complaint in state court against her former employer, New Direction Solutions, LLC. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges various violations of the California Labor Code, including: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to indemnify for employment-related expenditures; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; and (7) failure to timely pay all earned wages upon termination of employment. Plaintiff also asserts an eighth claim for unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200. On March 20, 2025, Defendant removed the case to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff asserts the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA because Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In its Notice of Removal, Defendant claims Plaintiff's seventh claim for failure to timely pay all earned wages upon termination of employment, commonly referred to as a claim for waiting time penalties, alone puts $7,837,956 in controversy. In arriving to that number, Defendant assumed: (1) that all putative class members who were terminated from their employment during the alleged class period are entitled to waiting time penalties, and (2) that those putative class members are entitled to the maximum penalty available under California Labor Code Sec. 203, which 1s 30 days of their regular pay. Defendant also estimated the number of employees who were terminated during the alleged class period, their hourly rates, and the average shift length for its employees. Plaintiff argues Defendant's estimates regarding average shift length, average hourly rates, and the number of employees who were terminated during the alleged class period are not supported. The Court finds Defendant's assumption that all putative class members who were terminated from their employment are entitled to waiting time penalties is reasonable. According to the Court, each of the 1,211 terminated employees identified by Defendant as potential class members need only have suffered one Labor Code violation while working for Defendant to be eligible for waiting time penalties. The Court also finds Defendant's assumption that the terminated employees would be entitled to the maximum waiting time penalty available under the Labor Code is also reasonable. In this, Defendant's assumption is reasonable because the amount in controversy reflects the maximum amount the plaintiff could possibly recover. Accordingly, Plaintiff's waiting time penalty claim places $7,313,229 in controversy and satisfies the CAFA amount in controversy requirement on its own, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZxVPOI from PacerMonitor.com. NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Ewing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra requests that the Court set schedule for briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel on May 7, 2025. No briefing schedule has been set for this motion. Symetra met and conferred with the other parties over email on May 13, 2025, to work out a briefing schedule for this motion. All of the parties agreed to (or expressed no opposition to) the following briefing schedule: -- June 6, 2025: Deadline for any oppositions to Motion for Class Certification -- June 27, 2025: Deadline for any replies in support of Motion for Class Certification Newport is an independent provider of retirement plans, insurance and consulting services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=24rEIK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott Abeles, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Jackson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION) Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra requests that the Court set schedule for briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel on May 7, 2025. No briefing schedule has been set for this motion. Symetra met and conferred with the other parties over email on May 13, 2025, to work out a briefing schedule for this motion. All of the parties agreed to (or expressed no opposition to) the following briefing schedule: -- June 6, 2025: Deadline for any oppositions to Motion for Class Certification -- June 27, 2025: Deadline for any replies in support of Motion for Class Certification Newport is an independent provider of retirement plans, insurance and consulting services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JtRXsG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott Abeles, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Russ Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra requests that the Court set schedule for briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel on May 7, 2025. No briefing schedule has been set for this motion. Symetra met and conferred with the other parties over email on May 13, 2025, to work out a briefing schedule for this motion. All of the parties agreed to (or expressed no opposition to) the following briefing schedule: -- June 6, 2025: Deadline for any oppositions to Motion for Class Certification -- June 27, 2025: Deadline for any replies in support of Motion for Class Certification Newport is an independent provider of retirement plans, insurance and consulting services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yXgElh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott Abeles, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Wade Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra requests that the Court set schedule for briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel on May 7, 2025. No briefing schedule has been set for this motion. Symetra met and conferred with the other parties over email on May 13, 2025, to work out a briefing schedule for this motion. All of the parties agreed to (or expressed no opposition to) the following briefing schedule: -- June 6, 2025: Deadline for any oppositions to Motion for Class Certification -- June 27, 2025: Deadline for any replies in support of Motion for Class Certification Newport is an independent provider of retirement plans, insurance and consulting services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yFl1jd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott Abeles, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Suite 400 West 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com PERRIGO CO: June 2025 Hearing on Bid to Certify Canadian Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Federal Court in Canada against Perrigo Company PLC and 29 manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which were neither made nor sold by Perrigo's former Rx business. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo. The Statement of Claim has been amended three times since it was issued. The next step in the action is currently expected to be the motion to certify the action as a class proceeding, which is scheduled to be heard in June 2025, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended: March 29, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Settlement in Braun Suit Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Milton Younge of the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval class action settlement in the case captioned as JASON BRAUN, and STEPHANIE CARTER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-4185-JMY (E.D. Pa.). The motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and lead plaintiff case contribution award is also granted final approval. Plaintiffs Jason Braun and Stephanie Carter are Facebook users and paid subscribers to The Philadelphia Inquirer's digital content. They have sued the Inquirer claiming generally, that the Inquirer unlawfully disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc., their Facebook User ID and the Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) to webpages that they viewed on www.Inquirer.com or on the Inquirer's mobile application -- thereby disclosing the titles to specific videos that Plaintiffs requested or viewed. Plaintiffs claim that these disclosures were made without their consent and in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710, and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 5701, et seq. The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. The Court preliminarily certified a Settlement Class of approximately 180,000 people who established a digital subscription with Defendant between Oct. 1, 2019, and Jan. 16, 2024, and who also had a Facebook account. As of the Oct. 27, 2024 deadline, there were 23,830 claims filed, only 4 requests for exclusion, and, most tellingly, zero objections to the Settlement or Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees of $374,962.25; $15,000.00 for the reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses; and $5,000.00 service awards for each of the two Class Representatives. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class is defined as: The approximately 180,000 individuals identified on the Settlement Class List generated by Defendant who established a digital subscription account with Defendant at any time from Oct. 1, 2019 until Jan. 16, 2024, and who used Facebook during that time. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge presiding over this Action; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. The Settlement Agreement establishes a Settlement Fund of $1,125,000.00 which represents all of Defendant's financial obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The costs of Settlement notice and administration, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and service awards to Class Representatives are to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The resulting Net Settlement Fund will be used to pay all valid Claims. The value of the Settlement payment to each Settlement Class member will be determined by dividing the Net Settlement Fund amount by the number of valid Claims as approved by the Settlement Administrator, Angeion. Based on 23,830 claims and an estimated Net Settlement Fund of $650,080.50, the estimated settlement payment to each Class member is $27.30. Defendant agreed to suspend operation of the Facebook or Meta Pixel on any pages of its website or app that track video content and have a URL that identifies the video content, or to obtain valid user consent that complies with requirements of the VPPA and the PA Wiretap Act. On Nov. 22, 2024, Class Counsel filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees of $374,962.25; $15,000.00 for the reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses; and $5,000 service awards for each of the two Class Representatives. The Service Awards are likewise reasonable and reflect the work Class Representatives performed in assisting Class Counsel throughout the litigation. Settlement Class The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides that: One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Parties in this case have established that the Settlement Class consists of approximately 180,000 individuals who established digital subscriptions with Defendant between Oct. 1, 2019 and Jan. 16, 2024, and who had Facebook accounts. This class size is sufficiently large that joinder of all members would be impracticable. Common questions in the case sub judice include whether Defendant knowingly disclosed Settlement Class members' personal viewing information to Meta, whether Defendant gave sufficient notice to Settlement Class members of such disclosure, and whether the information Defendant disclosed constitutes "personally identifiable information" under the VPPA. These are common questions subject to common proof that can be answered on a class-wide basis. Therefore, the Court finds questions of fact and law common to the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs' claims are essentially identical to those of the other Settlement Class members. They are all predicated on the same alleged conduct by Defendant, and Defendant's liability does not depend on the individualized circumstances of Plaintiffs or any Settlement Class member. Accordingly, the proposed class satisfies the typicality requirement. There is no apparent conflict between the interests of the named Plaintiffs and the claims asserted on behalf of the Settlement Class. Therefore, the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class. The questions of law and fact that are common to the Settlement Class predominate over any individual questions and can be answered with the same evidence: evidence of Defendant's installation of the Meta Pixel on its website; evidence as to what information, if any, Meta received from Defendant via the Meta Pixel; and whether Settlement Class members were notified of and/or given enough information to consent to the disclosure of their information to Meta when they opened a digital subscription with Defendant. Thus, predominance is satisfied. Any Settlement Class member's interest in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims is outweighed by the efficiency of a class action. Approximately 180,000 individuals had digital subscriptions to Defendant's website or app and Facebook accounts during the Settlement Class period. Setting these claims in the context of a class action conserves private and judicial resources and hastens Settlement Class members' recovery. Moreover, the fact that there were no class members who objected to this Settlement and only 4 opt-outs (representing less than 0.002 percent of the Settlement Class) also supports a finding that the superiority element has been satisfied. The Court has found that the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). Settlement Approval The Settlement is the result of non-collusive, good faith negotiations between experienced counsel to resolve the case at an early stage before costly discovery, dispositive motion, or trial. Plaintiffs' and Defendant's participation in a full day of mediation before Magistrate Judge Wells is further evidence of arm's length negotiations. The Parties continued the negotiations over the course of the next five months to finalize the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel engaged in discussions with both Defendant's Counsel and Defendant's insurance counsel, and the Parties also worked with Magistrate Judge Wells to confirm Defendant's representations about its financial status. These facts taken together weigh in favor of finding that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate warranting final approval, the Court concludes. The Settlement also satisfies Rule 23(e)(2)(D)'s requirement that it treat class members equitably relative to each other. Under the Settlement, each Settlement Class member is afforded the same financial and equitable relief. All Settlement Class members who submit valid claim forms will receive a pro rata settlement payment from the Settlement Fund. Approval of the Settlement Agreement makes sense under the circumstances because this litigation carries a high probability of high costs in both time and money if it is continued until final disposition on its merits. Given the complex technical nature of data privacy cases such as this one, and the fact that it involves unsettled questions of law related to the VPPA and PA Wiretap Act, any dispositive decision could potentially result in costly appellate litigation. Therefore, final approval of the class action Settlement Agreement will significantly reduce litigation expenses to both Parties which supports finding the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court appoints Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., and Goldenberg Schneider, L.P.A., as Co-Lead Class Counsel. Because Class Counsel's percentage-of-recovery fee request is consistent with the one-third approved in other VPPA cases, this factor supports approval of the requested fees. The Court will grant Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs to be paid from the settlement fund. Named Plaintiffs Jason Braun and Stephanie Carter are appointed as Class Representatives. Each Class Representative now seeks a $5,000.00 service award for a total award of $10,000.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund to which there is no objection from the Settlement Class. The Court finds the $5,000.00 service award to each named Class Representative is reasonable and warranted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GXhdAu from PacerMonitor.com. PLATINUM NINE: Miller Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Miller, individually and for others similarly situated v. PLATINUM NINE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a NORTHWEST AMBULANCE, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-12801-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00923. The Plaintiff purports to allege, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of a putative class of individuals, that Defendant committed unlawful compensation practices in violation of Washington State law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 682-6711 Email: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 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 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Shore, Esq. Aaron R. Doyer, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.624.0900 Facsimile: 206.386.7500 Email: jim.shore@stoel.com aaron.doyer@stoel.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Irvington Public Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Irvington Public Schools, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Bain Capital, L.P., Case No. 2:25-cv-03317 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01257 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 PREMIERFIRST HOME: Loses Bid to Extend Settlement Payment Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the United Statse District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied the defendants' motion to extend the settlement agreement payment schedule in the case captioned as SAHARA CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIERFIRST HOME HEALTH CARE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-199 (S.D. Ohio). The plaintiffs' cross-motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted in part. In this action, Plaintiffs sued Defendants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that their former employer, Defendant Premierfirst Home Health Care Inc., failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4111. After years of litigation and multiple mediation sessions, the parties reported they settled the case on March 26, 2024. Several months of negotiations on the exact language and terms of the settlement followed. Subject to the Court's approval, the Settlement Agreement certified the litigation as a "settlement class and collective action” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Under its terms, Defendants had to pay a maximum of $350,000, including $117,997.17 in attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The first payment of $250,000 was due within 30 days of the Agreement's effective date. Beginning 30 days after that first payment, Defendants were required to make 12 monthly payments, totaling $100,000. On Oct. 29, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement. After holding a fairness hearing on Jan. 14, 2025, the Court entered a final approval order and judgment on Feb. 3, 2025. But the settlement quickly derailed. Rather than make their first payment of $250,000, Defendants filed the instant Motion to extend their payment schedule because of their "deteriorated" financial condition. For their part, Plaintiffs oppose any extension of the payment schedule. Instead, they ask the Court to enforce the parties' settlement agreement as written. They seek judgment in their favor as to Defendants' breach of the Agreement; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys' fees and costs; and an order prohibiting Defendants from selling real estate or otherwise moving assets in an anticipated attempt to escape their financial obligations pursuant to the Agreement. Defendants say the Court doesn't need to change the Settlement Agreement to grant their extension. Instead, they say the Court must modify only its own order approving the parties' settlement. And, considering this is a class action, Defendants argue the Court has the inherent power to do so. Judge Jolson holds, "This case is different. Here, the parties, not the Court, set the settlement payment schedule. Further, the parties did not contemplate any extensions to that schedule without both sides' written consent. The parties also retained the discretion to reject any modifications suggested or directed by the Court. Still more, the payment schedule, 'in its exact form,' was a material term of the settlement. The parties said as much in their Agreement. Consequently, any extension to Defendants' payment deadline would be a material alteration to the terms to which the parties agreed. Clear precedent forbids this Court from making such changes." Defendants missed their deadline to make the first settlement payment. Consequently, Plaintiffs seek a judgment that Defendants have breached the Settlement Agreement. Defendants missed their deadline, and they have not made any payments while these Motions were pending. As a result, the Court must enforce the Settlement Agreement against them for the $250,000 owed. Plaintiff's Motion, on this front, is granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W9LQtx from PacerMonitor.com. PRIME ASCOT: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Leaser Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend in the case captioned as LEASER et al., Plaintiff, v. PRIME ASCOT, L.P. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02502-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.). Defendants argue that three of the Defendants -- Prime Ascot Acquisition, LLC; Prime/Park LaBrea Titleholder, LLC -- and Prime Administration, LLC should be subject to Delaware law on the issue of alter ego liability. They also bring a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs oppose both Motions. Plaintiffs brought the present suit as a putative class action against Defendants on behalf of three classes of plaintiffs. The suit was originally filed in California Superior Court, Solano County, and was removed to this Court on Dec. 17, 2020. Defendants' Motion argues that Delaware law, rather than California law, governs the issue of alter ego liability in this case, and that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the elements of an alter ego claim under Delaware law. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' arguments fail on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are estopped, and/or have waived, arguments about choice of law and that Defendants' Motion is masquerading as an improper motion for reconsideration. Substantively, Plaintiffs state that California law should apply under the governmental interest test, but that even if Delaware law were to apply, Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient. The Court finds that judicial estoppel is not appropriate in this instance. In this case, three Defendants, including Defendant Prime Administration, LLC, are incorporated in Delaware, and therefore the Court applies Delaware law in its alter ego analysis to determine whether veil-piercing is appropriate. The alter ego analysis must start with an examination of factors which reveal how the corporation operates and the particular defendant's relationship to that operation. These factors include: (1) whether the corporation was adequately capitalized for the corporate undertaking; (2) whether the corporation was solvent; (3) whether the dividends were paid, corporate records kept, officers and directors functioned properly, and other corporate formalities observed; (4) whether the dominant shareholder siphoned corporate funds; (5) and whether, in general, the corporation simply functioned as a façade for the dominant shareholder. Since the Court has already found that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the second element of alter ego liability under the California test, the Court will not revisit this issue. However, because the first element of alter ego liability has not been satisfied, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged alter ego under Delaware law such that Prime Administration is the alter ego of the titleholding subsidiaries. The Court grants the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to finding that Plaintiffs have failed to allege alter ego liability under Delaware law. The Court finds that addressing the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment would be premature at this point and denies the Motion without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZvpOOS from PacerMonitor.com. PRIMEX FARMS: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRIMEX FARMS, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Antonio Rubio Hernandez on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIMEX FARMS, LLC, Case No. BCV-25-101786 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Primex Farms LLC -- http://www.primex.us/-- is a food production company based out of Wasco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- The following class is certified: "All Progressive insureds of any North Carolina Progressive Company underwriting policies in North Carolina with first- party auto policies issued in the State of North Carolina, who received compensation for the total loss of their vehicles under their first party (comprehensive, collision, and UM/UIM) coverages, and who received a total loss valuation from Progressive generated by the WCTL program which took a deduction/adjustment for "projected sold adjustment" and were paid the amount of the valuation with the "projected sold adjustment." -- The plaintiff, Mayra Franco, is appointed as class representative. -- Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC are appointed as class counsel. -- The plaintiff shall present a draft proposal about class notice to the defendant within five business days. The proposal shall include a proposed notice to class members, a method for its distribution, a schedule for opting out, and any and all other matters requiring resolution related to notice. The parties SHALL promptly meet and confer, exchange revised drafts, and confer at least one more time. No later than June 2, 2025, the parties shall file a Joint Submission on Class Notice and Trial containing their joint proposal or, if they do not agree in full, dueling proposals with short briefs directed to items of disagreement. -- The Joint Submission shall also address an appropriate trial date, taking into account both the need to provide meaningful class notice and time to opt-out and the need to move the case promptly and efficiently toward final resolution. Ms. Franco's motion for class certification will be granted. She is a member of the proposed class, and she has demonstrated that the members of the proposed class are ascertainable. The plaintiff submitted a claim to her insurer, defendant Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company, after her 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee was totaled. She alleges that Progressive Southeastern underpaid her claim and that defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, which manages and controls the insurance claims process for Progressive affiliates, systematically underpays insureds who submit a total-loss claim by the arbitrary and illegal use of a "projected sold adjustment" (PSA). Progressive is an insurance company that underwrites automobile liability and collision insurance in North Carolina. 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=NFfJXy at no extra charge.[CC] QUEENS BOROUGH: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson, et al., v. Queens Borough Public Library, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06656 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 26, 2019), the Hon. Diane Gujarati Judge entered an order referring motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement to Mag. Judge Steven Tiscione. The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. The Queens Public Library, also known as the Queens Borough Public Library and Queens Library, is the public library for the borough of Queens, and one of three public library systems serving New York City.[CC] RESULTS CUSTOMER: Fact Discovery in Warren Suit Due August 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Warren v. Results Customer Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00888 (D. Del., Filed July 30, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order granting stipulation to extend briefing schedule regarding motion to certify class and fact discovery deadline: The Court further entered an order that the remaining deadlines in the scheduling order shall remain unchanged: -- Answering Brief due June 4. 2025 -- Reply Brief due June 25, 2025 -- Fact Discovery completed by Aug. 15, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act. Results Customer is a privately-held company that offers customer support and call center solutions to various industries.[CC] RESULTS CUSTOMER: Parties Seek More Time to Pursue Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA WARREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RESULTS CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS LLC, d/b/a RESULTS CX, Case No. 1:24-cv-00888-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order regarding parties' request for extension in order to pursue mediation: -- The Parties stipulate as follows: (a) Results' Answering Brief to Warren's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before on June 4, 2025; -- Warren's Reply to the Answering Brief shall be filed on or before June 25, 2025; and -- the conclusion of fact discovery shall be Aug. 15, 2025, the same date as the present end of expert discovery. Results is a company providing customer experience management services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tCTFy6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - 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 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com The Defendant is represented by: Thaddeus J. Weaver, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 800 N. King Street, Suite 202 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-8867 Facsimile: (302) 351-8735 E-mail: tweaver@dilworthlaw.com - and - Heather F. Crow, Esq. Amiel J. Provosty, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM 2915 Kerry Forest Parkway, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 296-1953 Facsimile: (504) 596-4189 E-mail: hfc@kullmanlaw.com ajp@kullmanlaw.com ROBERT HALF: Class Counsel Awarded $4.29MM in Attorney's Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $4,288,343.80 and costs in the amount of $103,364.46 in the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:13-cv-1478-SI (D. Ore.). Named Plaintiff Bonnie Magallon, on behalf of a certified class, contends that Defendant Robert Half International Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Court has approved a class settlement under which the parties agreed to seek an award of attorney's fees. Attorney's Fees Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' requested fee award, which is 1.9 times the total class recovery, is presumptively unreasonable (In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiffs respond that In re Bluetooth's discussion of a "second look" applies to common fund class settlements, which this case is not. The Court agrees that, given that the award of attorney's fees does not affect the Class Members' recovery in this case, a percentage of recovery analysis is unnecessary. Thus, Plaintiffs' lodestar is not presumptively unreasonable, the Court finds. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' requested fees at the 95th percentile are unreasonable and that the median hourly rates should be used instead. Defendant contends that this district has rarely approved hourly rates for plaintiff-side civil litigation at the 95th percentile. The Court agrees that, based on the complexity of this case and Class Counsel's extensive experience and expertise in this field, rates at the 95th percentile are reasonable. The Court thus allows rates of $806 per hour for John Soumilas, $806 per hour for James Francis, $656 per hour for Lauren Brennan, $656 per hour for Jordan Sartell, $923 per hour for David Searles, $923 per hour for Robert Sola, and $597 per hour for Shidon Aflatooni. The Court allows 575.3 hours for Mr. Francis, 2,605.02 hours for Mr. Soumilas, 750.5 hours for Ms. Brennan, 34.9 hours for Mr. Sartell, 27.9 hours for Mr. Searles, 820 hours for paralegals, 798.55 hours for Mr. Sola, and 51.3 hours for Mr. Aflatooni, for a total fee award of $4,076,999.77. Costs Plaintiffs request $103,364.46 in litigation expenses related to filing, deposition and hearing transcripts, travel, mediation and expert fees, and administrative costs. Defendant objects to costs related to Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Linsey Willis; to Plaintiffs' use of out-of-state counsel when Mr. Sola was involved; and to costs that Defendant argues should be considered overhead. The Court does not exclude costs related to Dr. Willis. It holds that Plaintiffs' expenses for long-distance phone charges, photocopying, and postage are recoverable. The Court thus awards Plaintiffs' requested costs in full. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WlTzmy from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Robert S. Sola, Esq. ROBERT S. SOLA PC 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800 Portland, OR 97201 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS PC, 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103. E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm Attorneys for Defendant: Sarah J. Crooks, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209 E-mail: SCrooks@perkinscoie.com - and - Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. Evangeline C. Paschal, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 E-mail: rquackenboss@hunton.com - and - Roland M. Juarez, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG B. COLTON, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00986-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss proposed class allegations and claims in the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff has shown a plausible entitlement to relief. The Court concludes Plaintiff has met its burden of proof, upon a motion to dismiss, to demonstrate his proposed class is presently ascertainable.. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of May 2025. The Plaintiff defines the class as follows: "Persons and entities to whom Sandridge, at any time since Nov. 14, 2017, has paid royalties on natural gas produced from wells in Oklahoma under oil and gas leases ("Subclass I Leases") which expressly prohibit the lessee's deduction of gathering costs in the calculation of royalties paid to the lessor ("Subclass I Leases"), and whose royalty payments received from Sandridge were reduced as a result of gathering deductions taken by Sandridge in its calculation and payment of royalties. ("Subclass I members"). Excluded from Subclass I are: (1) agencies, departments and instrumentalities of the United States of America, including the United States Department of the Interior, Indian tribes, and Indian allottees; and (2) Sandridge and its affiliates. The Plaintiff asserts the Defendant has undercalculated his royalty payments in breach of the Lease. SandRidge is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MFFS6Y at no extra charge.[CC] SARATOGA HARNESS RACING: Payne Files Suit in N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Dell Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00614-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. -- http://www.saratogacasino.com-- is a racecourse in Saratoga Springs, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 777-7777 Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com aberry@justice4you.com SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Docs in Koonce -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koonce v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-04323-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing certain materials that contain proprietary, commercially sensitive, or trade secret information (the "Documents") being filed by Sazerac in connection with its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additionally, Sazerac seeks to redact discrete sections of the memorandum of law opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification that quote from or refer to the Documents and to internal documents designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in Andrews v. Sazerac Company, Inc., 1:23-cv1060 (AS), to which documents in this matter are subject. The Documents constitute confidential business information that is appropriate to seal because disclosure of their contents could cause Sazerac competitive harm. Confidential sales, pricing, and marketing information warrants protection from disclosure. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z8o27n at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Creighton R. Magid, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2102 Telephone: (202) 442-3555 Facsimile: (202) 315-3852 E-mail: magid.chip@dorsey.com SEA LIMITED: $46-Mil. Class Settlement to be Heard on July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Sea Limited, et al., Defendants. Consolidated with Case No. 23-01889-PHX-SRB CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SEA LIMITED PUBLICLY-TRADED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 15, 2022 THROUGH AUGUST 14, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on July 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, at the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement for $46 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice and granting the releases as specified in the Stipulation; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award payment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with Lead Plaintiff's representation of the Class and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing has changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by telephone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the website, www.SeaLimited2023SecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference, the access information will be posted to the website, www.SeaLimited2023SecuritiesLitigation.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SEA LIMITED'S PUBLICLY-TRADED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 15, 2022 THROUGH AUGUST 14, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form by mail (postmarked, or received (if not postmarked), no later than June 23, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than June 23, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by June 23, 2025, will subject your Proof of Claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sea ADSs between November 15, 2022 and August 14, 2023, both dates inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.SeaLimited2023SecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to or calling: Sea Limited 2023 Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91130 Seattle, WA 98111 Telephone: 1-877-930-5821 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Sea, Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Theodore J. Pintar 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED, OR RECEIVED (IF NOT POSTMARKED), BY JUNE 10, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN JUNE 10, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. Questions? Visit www.SeaLimited2023SecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free at 1-877-930-5821. BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.SeaLimited2023SecuritiesLitigation.com SETTE-WYNWOOD: Alonzo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Alonzo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SETTE-WYNWOOD, LLC d/b/a ASTRA MIAMI, a Florida Limited Liability Company; and IRAKLIS KARABASSIS, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-22209-JB (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") and Article 10, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution ("Article X") for unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, unlawful tip retention and record keeping requirements. The Plaintiff, as a bartender, received tips from customers. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee and typically worked 40-50 hours per week. The Plaintiff was eligible to be paid overtime pay at time and one half. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one half the established Florida minimum wage minus the tip credit for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. In addition to not being paid overtime, the Plaintiff was also required to surrender a portion of his tips to non-tipped employees, including management. The tips outs include payment to management, the "house", and other non-traditionally tipped employees. The required surrender of the Plaintiff tips to non-tipped employees is improper under the FLSA, the FMWA, and Article X, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender receiving a tip credit minimum wage. The Defendants own, control, and operate a restaurant and bar in the state of Florida including the location where the Plaintiff was employed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com SIRIUS XM: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Surreply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE CAMPBELL, DIANA BICKFORD and KERRIE MULHOLLAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02261-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Sirius XM requests leave to file surreply brief in support of its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. SiriusXM seeks to file a surreply because Plaintiffs raise several "new factual or legal issues" in their reply brief that Plaintiffs did not include in their opening brief and that SiriusXM has not yet had an opportunity to address. On Nov. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of persons who: "(1) received more than one Sirius XM telephone solicitation call on their residential phone number (2) in any 12-month period telemarketing during the Class Period (3) 31 or more days after registering their telephone number with the [National Do-Not-Call] Registry, and (4) did not purchase SiriusXM’s satellite radio service." On Feb. 26, 2025, Sirius XM filed its opposition to the motion for class certification. Sirius XM operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EnrCI9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Christopher A. Hall, Esq. Lee A. Armstrong, Esq. Mark R. Seiden, Esq. Thomas Demitrack, Esq. Jeffrey R. Johnson, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 E-mail: chall@jonesday.com laarmstrong@jonesday.com mrseiden@jonesday.com tdemitrack@jonesday.com jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com SMARTERSWIPE INC: Arrhimi Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carem Arrhimi, Ethan Belloli-Ramos, Carlos Navarrete, Jorge Marcias, Richard Zamilpa, and Jeremy Jason Razo, as individuals; on behalf of himself/themselves and all others similarly situated v. SMARTERSWIPE INC., a Nevada corporation; KEVIN PARHAR, an individual; NICOLE MAI LEIGH NGUYEN, an individual; SAURAV "STEVE" SOOD, an individual; WILLIAM "BILLY" ANDERSON, an individual; and DOES 1-10, Case No. CV-24-010270 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00613. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the following 15 claims: Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Permit and Authorize Paid Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay Compensation Due Upon Discharge from Employment; Failure to Issue Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Unfair, Unlawful, or Fraudulent Business Practices; Fair Labor Standards Act; Breach of Oral Contract for Reimbursement of Expenses; Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Nev. Const. Art. XV, Sec. 16 - Failure to Pay Wages; NRS 608.250 - Failure to Pay Wages; (14) NRS 608.040-050 - Wait-Time Penalties; and Unjust Enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Heriberto Alvarez, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: halvarez@seyfarth.com - and - Bradley D. Doucette, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: bdoucette@seyfarth.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY, on behalf of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to certify all claims in this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiffs move that the class be defined as follows: "All person who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southeastern Savings Plan at any time between Oct. 23, 2018 and the present (the "Class Period") who were invested in the in the T. Rowe Price Small Cap Class A, Spectrum Class A, Value, Strategic Balanced, Strategic Growth, or Mid Cap Growth funds; T. Rowe Price Retire Tr B or F investments; Dodge & Cox Intl Stock Fund Class I, or PIMCO All Asset Class I Fund." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint them as the representatives of this class. Finally, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint the law firms of Morgan and Morgan P.A., McKay Law, LLC, and Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and appoint Laruen H. Carroway, Esq. of the law firm Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as local class counsel. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload (LTL) trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OJZLbZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC 29926 Telephone: (854) 222-6075 E-mail: LCarroway@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: MMcKay@mckaylaw.us SUNCOAST CREDIT: Casanova Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Eliorminia Casanova, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:25-cv-01242-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla., May 14, 2025), is brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing--without consent--the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information2 (together, "Personal and Financial Information") of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook" or "Meta"), Facebook Events, Google, LLC ("Google"), Google Analytics, DoubleClick Ads, Siteimprove, AdTheorent, Nextdoor, AdsWizz, TikTok, Sitecore, AlphaRank, BlueShift, Adroll, MNTN, Microsoft Clarity, The Trade Desk, Centro/SiteScout Basis, Tapad, Extole, and New Relic (collectively the "Third Parties") (in short, "the Disclosure"). Suncoast operates and encourages its customers to use its website, www.suncoast.com (the "Website"), on which customers can access their account information, access Suncoast's financial services, and apply for financial products like credit cards. Despite its unique position as a trusted credit union, Suncoast used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers' and Customers' (collectively, "Customers") Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of financial services—entirely without their knowledge or authorization. Suncoast did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code based tracking devices ("trackers" or "tracking technologies") into its Website. Through these trackers, Suncoast disclosed and continues to disclose Personal and Financial Information that Customers input into and accessed on Suncoast's Website. Customers, like Plaintiff and Class Members, simply do not and cannot anticipate that a trusted financial institution will send their Personal and Financial Information to hidden Third Parties (who in turn share with fourth parties), all of whom profit off of it; likewise, when Plaintiff and Class Members used Defendant's Website, they thought they were communicating exclusively with a trusted financial institution. At no time did Suncoast disclose to Plaintiff or Class Members that it was sharing their Personal and Financial Information with the Third Parties for third and fourth-party use. Plaintiff and Class Members never signed a written authorization permitting Defendant to send their Personal and Financial Information to the Third Parties who were uninvolved in the provision of financial services. And Suncoast never allowed Plaintiff or Class Members a real opportunity to opt-out of its Disclosure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied for Suncoast's services in April 2024 and is a victim of Defendant's unauthorized Disclosure of Personal and Financial Information. Suncoast is a full-service financial institution which provides "banking solutions including checking accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, auto loans, home equity loans, HELOCs and much more" to customers across the United States, including in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (321) 447-6461 Fax: (407) 612-2206 Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Florida 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SUNDANCE HOLDINGS: District of Utah Dismisses Arnstein Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah grants the Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit titled SHANNON ARNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. SUNDANCE HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00344-RJS (D. Utah). Before the Court is Defendant Sundance Holdings Group, LLC's Second Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1). Having reviewed the Motion and associated briefing, the Court grants Sundance's Motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sundance is a specialty retailer that sells a variety of clothing and other household products. Since Jan. 1, 2004, Sundance has advertised its products via physical catalogs and a website. As part of its business operations, the Plaintiffs allege Sundance maintains a vast digital database comprised of its customers' names, home addresses, and purchase histories (collectively, Private Purchase Information). To supplement its revenues, Sundance allegedly shares this Private Purchase Information with data aggregators, who then supplement the information with additional private information about each Sundance customer, including the customer's gender, age, religion, and ethnicity. This enhanced customer list adds value to Sundance's original list. Ultimately, Sundance allegedly rents, sells, and discloses both the Private Purchase Information and the enhanced list to data aggregators, data cooperatives, list brokers, aggressive advertisers, direct-marketing companies, political organizations, non-profit companies, and other third parties without providing notice to its customers. Between 2004 and 2024, each named Plaintiff purchased products from Sundance by placing orders on Sundance's website. The Plaintiffs claim Sundance completed the sales by shipping the products to each Plaintiff from a location within Utah. They also allege Sundance failed to notify them that it would disclose their Private Purchase Information, and they never authorized Sundance to do so. After completing these sales, Sundance allegedly shared the Plaintiffs' Private Purchase Information with various third parties for compensation. The Plaintiffs initiated this proposed class action in May 2024, alleging Sundance violated Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic Personal Information Act (NISNPIA). In July 2024, Sundance filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),14 which the Court denied. In its Memorandum Decision and Order denying Sundance's Motion, the Court found the Plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim for relief under NISNPIA, and it concluded Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure controlled over NISNIPIA's class action bar under the Supreme Court's framework articulated in the case of Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company, 559 U.S. 393 (2010) ("Shady Grove"). The primary reason for concluding NISNPIA's class action bar had no effect in federal court was "the lack of any clear evidence suggesting [NISNPIA's class action bar] define[d] the scope of NISNPIA's rights or remedies," as required by Shady Grove. But in March 2025, the Governor of Utah signed into law S.B. 150, which makes significant changes to NISNPIA's text. S.B. 150 was set to take effect on May 7, 2025. Sundance filed this Second Motion to Dismiss in March 2025, again challenging this Court's subject matter jurisdiction in light of the recent changes to NISNPIA. Sundance argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must yield to the class action bar found in Section 203(3) of NISNPIA in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Shady Grove. Sundance argues application of Section 203(3) deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims because, without a viable class action, the Plaintiffs cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, insist this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) notwithstanding the amendments to NISNPIA because there are more than 100 class members, the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, and minimum diversity among the parties exists. The Court agrees with Sundance that the recent amendments to NISNPIA provide the Court with the evidence necessary to conclude that, under the Supreme Court's framework articulated in Shady Grove, applying of Rule 23 in this case would impermissibly abridge, enlarge, and modify Utah's substantive rights and remedies in violation of the Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. Section 2072(b)). Accordingly, Judge Shelby holds that Section 203(3) of NISNPIA applies in federal court and precludes the Plaintiffs from maintaining their class action lawsuit. And without the ability to proceed as a class, the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement necessary for this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court grants Sundance's Second Motion to Dismiss, and Sundance's outstanding Motion to Stay is denied as moot. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2fphr2ru from PacerMonitor.com. SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES: Alessi Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN ALESSI, et al., v. SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00445-K (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend time to respond to file motion for class certification pursuant to LR 23.2 to a time specified by the Court at the time it enters a Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline to a time specified by the Court at the time it enters a Scheduling Order. Counsel for Synagro and Renda consent to this requested extension. There can be no prejudice in resetting these deadlines. The Plaintiffs originally filed the class action lawsuit against the Defendants in Johnson County, Texas, after which the case was removed by the Defendants to N.D. Texas on Feb. 21, 2025. On May 7, 2025, the Court issued an electronic order stating that it declined to enter a scheduling order in the case at this time pending a ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Synagro provides biosolids and organic waste management services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b35SvA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kirk Pittard, Esq. Tammy Holt, Esq. Shannon Turner Hays, Esq. DURHAM, PITTARD, & SPALDING, LLP Dallas, TX 75222 Telephone: (214) 946-8000 Facsimile: (214) 946-8433 E-mail: kpittard@dpslawgroup.com tholt@dpslawgroup.com shays@dpslawgroup.com - and - Mark Guerrero, Esq. Mary Whittle, Esq. GUERRERO & WHITTLE, PLLC 2905 San Gabriel Street, Suite 309 Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (512) 605-2300 Facsimile: (512) 222-5280 E-mail: mark@gwjustice.com mary@gwjustice.com - and - Christopher L. Schnieders, Esq. Patrick N. Haines, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC 6731 W. 121st Street, Suite 201 Overland Park, KS 66209 Telephone: (913) 246-3860 Facsimile: (913) 312-5841 E-mail: cschnieders@napolilaw.com phaines@napolilaw.com - and - Paul J. Napoli, Esq. NSPR LAW SERVICES, LLC 1302 Avenida Ponce de León Santurce, PR 00907 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Amended to Nov. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arbuckle Funding LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Talcott Resolution Life and Annuity Insurance Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Judith McCarthy entered a second amended discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Talcot shall answer or otherwise respond June 16, 2025 to the Third Amended Complaint by: -- Non-expert depositions shall be completed: Sept. 10, 2025 -- Any motions for class certification shall Nov. 25, 2025 be filled no later than: Talcott Resolution is a life insurance and annuity company and solutions-provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q597LN at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Daly Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as John Daly, and others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2025CH03937 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05453. The Complaint asserts three causes of action: violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"); common law fraud; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Trenton H. Norris, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 374-2300 Email: trent.norris@hoganlovells.com TARGET CORPORATION: Stephens Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Stephens, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2531-CC00216 was removed from the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-03131-JAM. The Plaintiff filed this Petition stating claims for breach of contract, vexatious denial, and money had and received against CPIC for its alleged failure to pay underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory W. Aleshire, Esq. William R. Robb, Esq. Kevin J. Rapp, Esq. ALESHIRE ROBB & RAPP 2847 Ingram Mill Road, A-102 Springfield, MO 65804 Phone: (417) 869-3737 Email: info@aleshirerobb.com The Defendants are represented by: Anna M. Berman, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 2405 Grand Boulevard, Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 960-0090 Fax: (816) 960-0041 Facsimile Email: anna.berman@kutakrock.com TELADOC HEALTH: Leadersel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ LEADERSEL INNOTECH ESG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In Re: Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-4687, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the company's common stock during the period October 28, 2021 through April 27, 2022. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the company's business, operations, and prospects. On Sept. 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2022. On Dec. 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 20, 2023. On July 5, 2023, Judge Denise L. Cote granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Aug. 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs appealed the Order to dismiss. On Nov. 22, 2024, the Defendants filed another motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which Judge Cote granted on Mar. 21, 2025. The Court held that the Lead Plaintiff has not identified how amendment would address the deficiencies in the second amended complaint, nor has it attached a proposed amendment complaint. Accordingly, the case is dismissed. The appellate case is entitled In Re: Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-1022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LEADERSEL INNOTECH ESG, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Defendants-Appellees TELADOC HEALTH, INC., et al. are represented by: Audra J. Soloway, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3289 TETRA TECH: $600K Class Settlement in Brown Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAGARION BROWN, et al., v. TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01133-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class, collective, and representative action settlement. The Class and Collective as defined in the Settlement are certified for settlement purposes. -- The Court finds the Settlement in the Gross Settlement Amount of $600,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the result of arm's-length informed negotiations; thus, the terms set forth in the Settlement are approved. The Parties are ordered to implement and comply with the terms of the Settlement; -- The Court appoints Plaintiffs Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon Garrett as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes only. The Class Representatives are each awarded $10,000 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and for their services as Class Representatives; -- The Court appoints Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only. Class Counsel is awarded one-third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount, amounting to $200,000, in attorneys' fees and $12,386.89 in costs for their work incurred in prosecuting this case. Each Party shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees beyond those provided by the Settlement; 6. Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions is awarded $7,000 for its services as the Settlement Administrator and shall carry out its remaining obligations under the Settlement; 7. The Court approves $50,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount to resolve PAGA claims with 75% of that portion ($37,500) to be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") as their share of the settlement for the civil penalties alleged and 25% ($12,500) to be distributed to the PAGA Class Members as their statutory share of the PAGA penalties. Accordingly, the Court adopts its prior findings and holds that the following Class and Collective are certified for purposes of this settlement: Rule 23 Class: "All persons who were employed by Jesco as non-exempt employees in California and who worked on projects subcontracted by Tetra at any time between June 3, 2016, and May 1, 2022." FLSA Collective: "All persons who were employed by Jesco as non-exempt employees in the United States who worked on projects subcontracted by Tetra at any time between June 3, 2017, and May 1, 2022." Tetra is an American consulting and engineering services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9GSia at no extra charge.[CC] TIA INC: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TIA INC. The case is styled as Julianna Raylene Valencia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TIA INC., TABU HEALTH INC., ASK TIA, Case No. 25STCV14440 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Tia -- https://asktia.com/ -- offers virtual and in-person healthcare appointments that are accessible and affordable.[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 TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Class Cert Stay Pending Arbitration Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order as follows: -- Staying Class Certification pending this Court's ruling on the Defendants' previously filed Motions to Compel Arbitration; and -- Staying and/or extending the briefing deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the pending motions to compel arbitration have been decided and/or until the parties have an opportunity to conduct pre-class certification discovery. I In the alternative, Archer requests a 45-day extension to reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because Counsel for Archer is overseas on vacation as stated in Archer's Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, Archer requests this Court stay the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and any related briefing pending a ruling on Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration, and, until Archer is given the opportunity to conduct pre-certification discovery. The case arises out of alleged construction deficiencies concerning an undetermined number of houses thought to be approximately 8,000 to 12,000 single family homes that were constructed in Beaufort, Charleston, Dorchester, Berkeley, Georgetown, and Horry County. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southern Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc. Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HQBYeR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: F. Heyward Grimball, Esq. RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 235 Magrath Darby Blvd., Suite 100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 E-mail: fhgrimball@richardsonplowden.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Stay Class Cert & Bifurcate Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Nicholas Bardsley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay class certification & bifurcate discovery on the grounds that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is premature because 1) multiple defendants' motions to compel arbitration are pending and 2) the Defendants have not had the opportunity to conduct any discovery on the issues related to class certification. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is premature due to the pending motions to compel arbitration filed by Defendants and other parties. The putative class action involves alleged construction defects in approximately 11,000 residences built by Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. in Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Georgetown, and Horry Counties. The alleged defects involve the use of improper roofing underlayment and improper fastening of roofing underlayment. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on May 2, 2025. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, Pacific Contractors, Inc., Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, SEE Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Southend Exteriors, Professional Builders Supply, LLC d/b/a Professional Builders Supply Commercial PRSRE-GVL, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc., Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qS9GFG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: L. Dean Best, Esq. Rachel Maria Castell, Esq. BEST LAW, P.A. 999 Lake Hunter Circle, Suite D Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 793-4744 E-mail: dean@bestlawsc.com rachel@bestlawsc.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks to Stay Class Certification in Vriens ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay class certification and extend briefing deadlines to allow for discovery on the grounds that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is premature. Specifically, multiple motions to compel arbitration remain pending before the Court and 84 Lumber has not had the opportunity to conduct discovery related to class certification. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is premature both due to the unresolved motions to compel arbitration and the absence of class-related discovery. Proceeding with class certification at this stage would unfairly prejudice 84 Lumber and hinder the Court's ability to conduct the necessary Rule 23 analysis. Accordingly, Lumber requests that the Court stay consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification until: (1) after the Court rules on the pending motions to compel arbitration, and (2) after 84 Lumber is afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery on class certification issues, should any claims remain. Additionally, as part of the requested stay, 84 Lumber requests that the Court extend the deadline for submitting a brief in response to Plaintiffs' Motion until the Court rules on the pending motions to compel arbitration, and until 84 Lumber is afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery class certification issues, should any claims remain. The putative class action involves alleged construction defects in approximately 11,000 residences built by Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc. across Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester, Georgetown, and Horry Counties. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource -- Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina's, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southern Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc., Tip-Top is a locally owned and operated roofing company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Axbk84 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jared H. Garraux, Esq. Lindsey Birchmore, Esq. RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A. 1900 Barnwell Street (29201) Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone (803) 771-4400 E-mail: jgarraux@richardsonplowden.com lbirchmore@richardsonplowden.com TSYS MERCHANT: S.B.C.W. Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.B.C.W. CONSULTING, INC. dba 76 FORD EXIT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TSYS MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TSYS ADVISORS, INC., a Georgia corporation; TSYS ACQUIRING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03193-SRM-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline outlined in the Court's Case Management Order, Courtroom 6C Rules, the Central District of California Local Rule 23-3 for filing a motion for class certification, as follows: Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 7, 2025, as well as the briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Motion Filing Date: June 5, 2025. Opposition Brief To Motion for Class Certification: June 26, 2025. Reply Brief: July 17, 2025. TSYS offers credit card processing and other related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gFv0G7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Brendan J. Burton, Esq. Shadi Sahebghalam, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimilie: (424) 768-7880 E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com susan@protectionlawgroup.com brendan@protectionlawgroup.com shadi@protectionlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Theresa A. Kristovich, Esq. Jonathan D. Marvisi, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3989 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: tkristovich@kcozlaw.com jmarvisi@kcozlaw.com - and - Alan G. Snipes, Esq. PAGE SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C. 1111 Bay Avenue, 3rd Floor Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 324-0251 Facsimile: (706) 323-7519 E-mail: asnipes@pagescrantom.com TULPEHOCKEN SPRING: Skrip Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SKRIP, and NOAH PEZNOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. TULPEHOCKEN SPRING WATER, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00673-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action. Tulpehocken provides water beverage services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ESHwqw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq. MOBILIO WOOD 900 Rutter Ave., Box 24 Forty Fort, PA 18704 Telephone: (570) 234-0442 Facsimile: (570) 266-5402 E-mail: peter@mobiliowood.com - and - Alex A. Pisarevsky, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 Facsimile: (201) 845-9423 E-mail: ap@njlawfirm.com TWITTER INC: Filing fort Class Cert Bid in Carolina Due Sept. 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting joint stipulation to revise briefing and hearing schedule as follows: Event Date Opp. re Motion to Strike: May 19, 2025 Reply re Motion to Strike: May 27, 2025 Hearing re Motion to Strike: June 26, 2025 Opp./Experts re Motion for Class Cert: Aug. 22, 2025 Expert deadline re Class Cert: Sept. 5, 2025 Reply re Motion for Class Cert: Sept. 12, 2025 Hearing re Motion for Class Cert: Oct. 16, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. On April 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, which included as attachments various arbitration awards involving the Defendant and other clients of the Plaintiffs' counsel, which the Defendant contends are confidential. Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging service. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ek29b5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com brian.berry@morganlewis.com roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com ashlee.cherry@morganlewis.com carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: N.D. California Dismisses Eberhardt Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion and dismisses the lawsuit captioned CHRIS EBERHARDT, Plaintiff v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-03183-PCP (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Chris Eberhardt brings this putative class action against U-Haul alleging that UHaul violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by encouraging uninsured drivers to rent its vehicles. U-Haul moves to dismiss Eberhardt's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On March 23, 2023, Anthony Leso lost control of the rented U-Haul truck that he was driving and crashed into Eberhardt's property in Santa Cruz County, California. Eberhardt suffered approximately $100,000 in property damage to his fence and gazebo and to the walls of his home. Leso was allegedly uninsured when he crashed the truck into Eberhardt's property. Mr. Eberhardt alleges that U-Haul does not require renters or operators of its vehicles to show proof of insurance, nor does it automatically provide insurance. Further, he alleges that U-Haul actively advertises that it does not require insurance. On April 23, 2024, Eberhardt commenced this action in Santa Cruz Superior Court. He brought suit on behalf of a purported class of all California citizens damaged by uninsured drivers of U-Haul vehicles. He asserted two causes of action: (1) unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and (2) negligence. U-Haul removed the action to federal court on May 28, 2024. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Court granted U-Haul's motion to dismiss Eberhardt's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Eberhardt then filed an amended complaint asserting one cause of action for violation of the UCL. Mr. Eberhardt alleges that U-Haul engages in an "unfair" practice prohibited by the UCL by advertising to uninsured drivers. According to him, this practice encourages drivers to violate California Vehicle Code section 16020(a), which provides that "[a]ll drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle." In its order granting U-Haul's previous motion to dismiss, the Court explained that targeting rental vehicle advertising to people without insurance could undermine the California Legislature's policy of prohibiting such individuals from driving, as reflected in Section 16020(a). But the Court held that Eberhardt had failed to allege facts showing that U-Haul engaged in such advertising. The complaint's only relevant allegation was that U-Haul states on its website's Frequently Asked Questions page that it "does not require insurance." The Court concluded that this type of factual statement, without more, does not constitute the kind of advertising, promoting, or marketing that might implicate the UCL's unfairness prong or show that U-Haul actively encouraged anyone to violate Section 16020(a). In the amended complaint, Eberhardt alleges that on a page of U-Haul's website promoting its own insurance product, under the heading "Did You Know?", U-Haul states, "No proof of insurance needed to rent our equipment." Additionally, on the Damage Coverage Frequently Asked Questions page, U-Haul states, "If you cannot provide proof of insurance, you can still reimburse U-Haul for any damage caused during your rental when you return it." Mr. Eberhardt asserts that these statements are targeted at proactively encouraging customers that do not have insurance to rent and subsequently drive and/or tow the Defendant's equipment, thus, actively encouraging customers to violate Section 13020(a). Judge Pitts holds that this characterization is inaccurate. Like the statement on the Frequently Asked Questions page that the Court previously found insufficient to support a UCL claim, the additional statements described in the amended complaint are merely factual. They do not proactively encourage customers to take any action but simply provide factual information about U-Haul's products on webpages devoted to promoting U-Haul's own insurance product and answering customer questions, Judge Pitts opines. Indeed, that one of these statements is found on a page encouraging customers otherwise lacking insurance to purchase insurance directly from U-Haul could be understood as proactively encouraging compliance with Section 13020(a), Judge Pitts points out. The amended complaint, thus, again fails to allege facts sufficient to state a violation of the UCL, Judge Pitts holds. For these reasons, the Court grants U-Haul's motion to dismiss. Because the Court previously gave Eberhardt the opportunity to amend his complaint and he was unable to cure its deficiencies, the dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrrhjsju from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED SERVICES: Davidson's Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. Davidson's instant Motion for class certification is denied. 2. The parties are directed to confer forthwith and to file no later than May 23, 2025, a joint status report that provides the Court with their jointly proposed case schedule or, if the parties cannot agree, their respective competing proposed case schedules and the reasons for their disagreement. 3. A scheduling conference is set for June 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for parties are directed to appear in person at that date and time. Accordingly, the proposed class is as follows: "All individuals insured by USAA in California under a condominium owners policy, from Sept. 23, 2017, to the date judgment enters, whose property is governed by an insured association of property owners, and who made a claim under their condominium owners policy where USAA's records reflect that a letter informed the insured that the USAA policy provided excess or secondary coverage." Davidson filed his original complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court in September 2019, and he amended his pleading in state court in December 2019.28. In January 2020, USAA removed this case to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. United is a private financial services and insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xNQ2Zo at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SITE: Garcia Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALLEN GARCIA, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., UNITED SITE NATIONAL SERVICES COMPANY, UNITED SITE SERVICES, INC., ATHONE CO., INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03019-MRA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the Settlement and certifying a class for settlement purposes. The Plaintiff accordingly provides this supplemental briefing, supporting declaration, fully executed first amended class settlement agreement, and revised proposed class notice to address the Court's concerns and assure the Court that the proposed amended settlement agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. United provides portable toilet rental services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuQ8fL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Vedang J. Patel, Esq. Brandon M. Chang, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com vedang@tomorrowlaw.com brandon@tomorrowlaw.com UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ United States Oil Fund LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 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 June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). UNITED STATES: Accord in Kidd v. Noem & ICE Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled OSNY SORTO-VASQUEZ KIDD, et al., Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.). In this action, Organizational Plaintiffs Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice ("ICIJ") and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Los Angeles ("CHIRLA") seek class-wide declaratory relief that various actions of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), policies, and practices violate the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and injunctive relief to enjoin these practices. The Organizational Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Ruse Class seek an order granting preliminary approval of a proposed settlement ("Proposed Settlement"). Judge Wright notes that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Kristi Noem substituted in as Defendant for Alejandro Mayorkas, and that Plaintiff Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd also asserts individual claims for various torts and violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Organizational Plaintiffs challenge how ICE conducts law enforcement in its Los Angeles Area of Responsibility ("AOR"), which includes the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. The Organizational Plaintiffs allege two methods by which ICE officers in this district routinely conduct arrests in or near the home that violate the Constitution: (1) ICE officers misrepresent themselves as police or probation to trick individuals into granting them entry into or otherwise relinquishing the privacy of their homes (the "Ruse" claims), and (2) ICE officers enter the constitutionally protected private areas around individuals' homes to arrest occupants without consent or a judicial warrant (the "Knock and Talk" claims). As the Agreement concerns the Ruse claims only, the Court focuses on those claims. In the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Organizational Plaintiffs claim that ICE officers routinely use "ruses" in which they impersonate non-immigration law enforcement officials to induce people to "consent" to officers entering their homes or to lure them out of them homes to conduct warrantless immigration arrests. During these "ruses," ICE officers often wear uniforms with "POLICE" written on them. One such "ruse" is when ICE officers try to get consent to enter a home or lure residents outside by claiming to be police investigating a fake crime and show a picture of a "suspect" for whom they are looking. On April 16, 2020, the Organizational Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against various ICE and DHS officials in their official capacities ("Official Capacity Defendants"), the United States of America, and individual officers O.M., C.C., J.H., and J.N ("Individual Officer Defendants"). ICIJ and CHIRLA sought class-wide declaratory relief that various ICE actions, policies, and practices violate the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also sought injunctive relief to enjoin these practices. Plaintiff Kidd separately asserted individual claims for trespass, false imprisonment, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Fourth Amendment against the United States and Individual Officer Defendants. On Feb. 7, 2023, the Court granted the Organizational Plaintiffs' motion to certify two classes of individuals, who have been or will be affected by Official Capacity Defendants' alleged unconstitutional practices: the "Ruse Class" and the "Knock and Talk" Class. The Ruse Class is defined as: "All individuals residing at a home in the Los Angeles Area of Responsibility where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted or will conduct a warrantless civil immigration enforcement operation in which officers enter the home under a claim of consent, or where the individual exits their home at the request of ICE, without officers first verbally stating their true identity as immigration officers or their immigration law purpose." The Court also appointed CHIRLA and ICIJ as Lead Plaintiffs and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP as Class Counsel. On Oct. 10, 2023, after the parties informed the Court that they had reached or believed they would reach a settlement of the Ruse Class claims, the Court stayed the action as to all claims, except those related to the Knock and Talk Class. On April 30, 2024, the parties informed the Court that they had reached agreement on the remaining non-monetary issues in this case, other than those related to the Knock and Talk Class, subject to the resolution of the monetary issues. On May 15, 2024, the Court granted the Organizational Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under Rule 56(e) as to the Knock and Talk Class's first, second, and third causes of action, and denied Official Capacity Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to those same claims. On Nov. 1, 2024, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, the Court dismissed Kidd's remaining individual Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens claims. The Court previously dismissed Kidd's negligence and false imprisonment claims against the United States. Then, on Nov. 26, 2024, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an agreement regarding the claims for fees and costs associated with settlement of the Ruse Class claims. The Organizational Plaintiffs now seek preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement, which the Defendants do not oppose. The Proposed Settlement provides that it will become effective upon final approval by the Court and will terminate three years thereafter. The parties will ask the Court to retain jurisdiction over this action for this entire period to enforce the Agreement. The Proposed Settlement also provides that ICE Officers are prohibited from identifying as a specific state or local law enforcement agency, like the LAPD, probation, parole, detectives, or any other non-federal government agency when conducting a civil immigration enforcement action at a residence. Moreover, with few exceptions, when conducting a civil immigration enforcement action at a residence in "vest placards," "clothing clearly identifying them as law enforcement officers," or "in external body armor carriers," ICE Officers must have visible "ICE" identifiers when there is a visible "POLICE" identifier. ICE Officers from the Los Angeles Field Office may not engage in a ruse during a civil immigration enforcement action that identifies the officers as governmental officials and misrepresents their identity or purpose. As of the date of final approval of the Proposed Settlement, the Organizational Plaintiffs agree to release the Official Capacity Defendants from any and all claims for prospective equitable relief (i.e., declaratory and injunctive relief) arising out of the alleged statutory and constitutional violations asserted by the Organizational Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Ruse Class, the Organizational Plaintiffs' sanctions/fee motions, and the Organizational Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to the Ruse Class claims. When the parties jointly request the Court's final approval of the Proposed Settlement, Class Counsel will file a separate motion for approval of $2,600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs on account of work done for the Ruse Class claims. The Official Capacity Defendants agree not to oppose Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in this amount. The Court finds that the costs, risks, and delay of appeal favor preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement--without a settlement, there is a substantial risk that the parties will expend resources litigating the Ruse Class claims and associated attorneys' fees. The Court also finds, among other things, that the Proposed Settlement provides adequate relief to the class. Without getting into the merits of the case, the Court notes that the Organizational Plaintiffs defeated the Official Capacity Defendants' motion to dismiss challenging the Ruse Class claims, certified a class, and received summary judgment on the Knock and Talk Class claims, which raised procedural issues that may have overlapped with the Ruse Class claims, the Organizational Plaintiffs brought the Ruse Class claims to challenge and enjoin certain of the Official Capacity Defendants' policies and practices, and the Proposed Settlement will remedy at least some of the challenged policies and practices. For these reasons, Judge Wright holds the Proposed Settlement provides adequate relief to the class. The Court grants the Organizational Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Court (1) preliminary approves the Proposed Settlement and (2) approves the form and method of the parties' Proposed Class Notice, provided that the parties make the changes noted in this Order. Within three days of the date of this Order, the parties will publish the Proposed Notice, consistent with this Order, for forty-two (42) days as outlined in the Settlement Agreement Section VII(B). Ruse Class members will have forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order (i.e., forty-two (42) days from the date the parties are required to give notice) to respond and register any objections to the Settlement Agreement. The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Aug. 4, at 9:00 a.m. No later than five (5) days after the objection deadline provided in the Proposed Class Notice, the parties will file with the Court any objections received or a notice that no objections were received. No later than twenty-eight (28) days before the Final Approval Hearing, the Organizational Plaintiffs will file with the Court a motion for final approval of the settlement along with an application for attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with Rule 23(h). Oppositions to either motion must be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Final Approval Hearing. If any opposition is filed, either party may file a reply in support of any objected-to motion no later than fourteen (14) days before the Final Approval Hearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/55h9s7du from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Iliya v. USMS Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismisses for failure to prosecute the lawsuit styled DAUDA ILIYA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03720-TSH (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Dauda Iliya, who represents himself, brings this case against the United States Marshals Service ("USMS"), alleging security officers at the entrance to the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Courthouse in Oakland, California, forced him to remove his religious cap. The Plaintiff states he is a devout individual who, as part of his religious observance, wears a religious cap, which holds deep religious significance for him. On March 17, 2023, the Plaintiff visited the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Courthouse in Oakland, California, with the intention of filing documents with the Clerk of Court. The Plaintiff states that when he approached the entrance of the courthouse, he encountered several U.S. Marshals stationed for security purposes. Upon noticing his religious cap, a U.S. Marshal informed him that he would not be permitted to enter the court Clerk's Office unless he removed the cap. The Plaintiff explained that the cap was a mandatory religious article that he wore for religious purposes and requested accommodation to retain the cap while conducting his business within the courthouse, but the U.S. Marshal insisted he could not proceed unless he removed the cap. As a result, the Plaintiff was effectively denied access to the court clerk's office to file his documentation on the stated date and time. On March 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an administrative claim regarding the incident, which the USMS formally denied on Dec. 19, 2023. The Plaintiff filed this case on June 20, 2024, naming USMS and Does 1-10 as Defendants. He alleged seven causes of action: (1) violation of his First Amendment rights, (2) violation of 41 C.F.R. Section 102-74.445, (3) violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligence, (6) discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, and (7) violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Pending before the Court is USMS's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On Sept. 9, 2024, USMS moved for dismissal, arguing the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims. After the Plaintiff failed to file an opposition, the Court ordered him to show cause by Oct. 11, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines, as well as why the Defendant's motion should not be granted. After the Plaintiff filed a response, the Court discharged the show cause order and directed him to file an amended complaint by Feb. 27, 2025. The Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on Feb. 27, alleging claims under the First and Fifth Amendments and the RFRA. In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff states he "asserts claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who may have been affected by Defendants' policies or practices regarding religious attire seeks to represent a class of similarly aggrieved persons." However, Judge Hixson opines, a pro se plaintiff cannot pursue claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. The Plaintiff, therefore, may not bring claims on behalf of a class. USMS again moved for dismissal. After the Plaintiff failed to file an opposition, the Court ordered him to show cause (the third show cause order issued in this case) by April 21, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. The Court warned that the case may be dismissed if he failed to respond. As of May 5, 2025, Judge Hixson says no response has been received. Based on the procedural history of this case, Judge Hixson finds it appropriate to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's deadlines and orders. Based on the Court's analysis, Judge Hixson finds at least four of five factors weigh in favor of case dismissal. Judge Hixson explains that the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with Court deadlines, failed to respond to USMS's pending motion to dismiss, and failed to respond to the Court's third show cause order. Thus, the Plaintiff failed to prosecute this case and dismissal is appropriate. However, Judge Hixson says, a less drastic alternative is dismissal without prejudice, which both minimizes prejudice to a defendant and preserves a plaintiff's ability to seek relief. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's deadlines and orders. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryfx899 from PacerMonitor.com. VESYNC CORPORATION: Must Oppose Chen Class Cert Bid by June 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK CHEN, et al., v. VESYNC CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04458-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a revised case management scheduling order as follows: Final Pretrial Conference: May 14, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: Jan. 27, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 7, 2025 Class certification motion due: May 2, 2025 Opposition to class certification motion due: June 27, 2025 Last day to reply to class certification motion: July 25, 2025 Last day to be heard: Sept. 16, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 19, 2025 Settlement Conference with Private Mediator by: Sept. 12, 2025 Vesync engages in the research and development, manufacture, and sale of smart household appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nxRDsc at no extra charge.[CC] WATA INC: Knight Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, and JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA, INC. and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order: -- granting in part and denying part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion[s] for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Court further entered an order that Counts VI and VII are dismissed and the Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief are stricken. The Court cannot find that the Plaintiffs make no separate argument regarding their good faith and fair dealing claim. The Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the California statutory claims, as they request. The Court denies summary judgment on these claims. The Plaintiffs' motions for class certification warrant only summary treatment. The proposed class was preliminarily defined as: "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019, who did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times estimated by Wata, Inc. on the company's website." The Plaintiff Knight purchased grading and encapsulation services for three games from Wata on June 8, 2020, and chose the Select service tier when he made his purchase which had a turnaround time of 180 days. Mr. Knight paid Wata $117.00 dollars to receive his games graded, cleaned, encapsulated and returned within 180 days. Mr. Knight did not receive his games back until March 6, 2022, which is 636 days after he placed his order. Wata sells grading and encapsulation services to the public. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IDgj7s at no extra charge.[CC] WYNDHAM VACATION: Lamar Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salinda Lamar, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS, an entity of unknown form; WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, an entity of unknown form; WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP INC., an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV426886 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Lake, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04191. On March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a putative class action complaint ("Complaint") against Defendants, alleging the following thirteen causes of action for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime under Labor Code; meal-period liability under Labor Code; rest-break liability under Labor Code; failure to pay vacation wages; failure to comply with Labor Code; reimbursement of necessary business expenditures under Labor Code; violation of Labor Code; failure to keep required payroll records under Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code 221; failure to pay wages due, negotiable and payable in cash on demand under Labor Code; penalties pursuant to Labor Code 203; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathy A. Le, Esq. Kelli M. Dreger, Esq. Lauren B. Shelby, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Email: Kathy.Le@jacksonlewis.com Kelli.Dreger@jacksonlewis.com Lauren.Shelby@jacksonlewis.com [^] eDiscovery Firms Supporting Class Action Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Updates recently released the Special Report on eDiscovery Firms Supporting Class Action Litigation, providing an overview of notable eDiscovery and OSINT service providers. eDiscovery in class action lawsuits involves the identification, collection, processing, review, and production of electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to the case, from internal sources (e.g., company emails, databases, or employee devices). It is a critical component in modern litigation, especially in class actions, due to the large volume of data, multiple parties, and complex legal issues. Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) can supplement eDiscovery by providing external, publicly accessible data that supports or challenges claims. Notable eDiscovery and OSINT service providers include: * eDiscovery Cocounsel, Pllc; * Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc.; * International Litigation Services; * Lighthouse; * Magnet Forensics; and * Social Media Information, LLC, dba SMI Aware A full-text copy of the Special Report is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/ediscovery-firms-supporting-class?r=594e43 (subscription required.) ********* 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 ***