250529.mbx

250529.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 107 Headlines 301 SCRUBS: Guccione Sues Over Private Data Breach 3M COMPANY: Rooker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama AANIIIH NAKODA: Faces Hearn Suit Over Illegal Loan Rates ABM AVIATION: Appeals Arbitration Order in Cocom Suit to 9th Cir. AES CORP: Siegel Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. ALCHEMEE LLC: O'Dea Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Class Filing Cert Amended to June 20 AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by June 27 ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Appeals Denied DeCert. Bid in Overby FLSA Suit APPLE INC: Accardi Sues Over False and Misleading Campaign APPLE INC: Environmental Defense Fund Backed Greenwashing Suit ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT: MacArthur Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages AVVO INC: Faces Louw-Defazio Suit Over Publicity Rights Breach AXON ENTERPRISE: GovernmentGPT Appeals Court Orders to 9th Circuit BANK OF AMERICA: Tran Files Suit in S.D. California BAR 9 ENTERTAINMENT: Court Awards $2,160 Atty's Fees in Cruz BDO USA: Files Writ of Certiorari in New England Suit to Sup. Ct. BINANCE HOLDINGS: Baratta Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida BITFARMS LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due July 8 BLUE SHIELD: Quang Sues Over Disclosure of Information BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Waziri Suit Removed to N.D. California BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Appeals Summary Judgment to 7th Cir. BRIGHT DATA: Seeks Denial of X's Bid to Extend Proposed Schedule BUFFALO, NY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Black Love Suit BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Frame Alleges BUS PATROL: Morgulis Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit CARPENTER CO: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Sues Over Labor Law Breaches CERES CLASSIC: Continues to Defend Camelot Event Class Suit CFSB BANCORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Hometown Financial CIGNA CORPORATE: Adair et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info CLOVER LEAF: Faces Haese Suit Over Illegal Overtime Pay Scheme CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Gustin Suit Removed to E.D. California COINBASE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McAfee Says COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Must Oppose Gershzon Class Cert Bid by July 24 COMPASS GROUP: Matthews Balks at Misleading Registration Statements CORE NATURAL RESOURCES: Nelson Suit Removed to D. Colorado CORELLE BRANDS: Buksbaum Sues Over Deceitful Express Warranties CORTEVA INC: Aaron, et al., Must Submit Expert Declarations CORTEVA INC: Baker Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations CORTEVA INC: Bartholomew Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations CORTEVA INC: Bonne Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations CORTEVA INC: Brown Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations COWBOY CHANNEL: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1-Mil. CRUNCH LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Jordan Suit to 2nd Circuit CSI ELECTRICAL: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd CURO CREDIT: Barnhardt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation DATEFIT LLC: Holifield Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Certification DATEFIT LLC: Holifield Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery DAVE & BUSTERS: Locklear FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina DENTSPLY SIRONA: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1-Mil. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert DUNKIN DONUTS: Garland Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Indiana Court ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Zenrelia(R) Class Suits ELON MUSK: Aguiar Sues Over Unlawful Monitoring of Communications EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert Filing in Osterhaus Due Jan. 21, 2027 FEDERAL SAVINGS: Court Continues Mediation Deadline in Sapan FENIX INTERNET: Gates Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscriptions FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Labor Suit FIDELITY NATIONAL: Klaus Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Tossed FIFTY WEST: Court Tosses Morse Suit w/o Prejudice FIRST AMERICAN: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges FLORIDA: Raghubir Appeals Court Order in Class Suit to 11th Circuit FLOWERS BAKERIES: Dezeurn Suit Removed to C.D. California FORD MOTOR: Faces Geletka ERISA Class Suit Over Retirement Plan FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. GAP INC: Files Cross Appeal in Diaz Securities Suit to 2nd Circuit GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Engine Failure GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Houchin Class Suit Over L87 Engine Defect GIGSMART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Circuit GLOBAL MORTGAGE: Ragsdale Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado GLOBAL TETRAHEDRON: Discloses Personal Info, McRitchie Suit Says GOODRX INC: Valley Health Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island GORSUCH LTD: Pilkington Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit HALLCON CORPORATION: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HANOVER VENTURES: Mesa Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Circuit HELLO BELLO: Faces Class Action Over Baby Products' False Ads HOTELENGINE INC: Figueroa Suit Removed to D. Colorado HYUNDAI MOTOR: Maldonado et al. Sue For Defective Palisade Vehicles IDAHOAN FOODS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ILLUMINA INC: Fed. Securities Trial Date Still Not Set INTERNATIONAL BANK: Appeals Arbitration Order in Parrott ERISA Suit INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Class Cert Conference Set for June 9 JBS FOODS: Appeals Dismissal Bid Order in Taylor Suit to 8th Cir. JBS FOODS: Appeals Taylor Suit Dismissal Ruling to 8th Circuit JEROME HARRIS: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Carmichael JEROME HARRIS: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in ERISA Suit JOHN CARNEY: Gibbs Wins Class Certification Bid KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Health Data KAWASAKI MOTORS: Conway Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. KIM KOVOL: Seeks to Supplement Class Cert Materials KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations LEDUC, AB: Court Permits Disclosure of Sexual Misconduct Settlement LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Court Greenlights $8-Mil. Settlement in OT Case MACC TRANSPORT: Edmonds Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA MADDY'S HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges MAPLEBEAR INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Connor Suit to 4th Circuit MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit MASTERCARD INC: UK Tribunal Finalizes Settlement in Swipe Fees Suit MEMBERS HERITAGE: Trent Brings Appeal to Kentucky Appeals Court MERCK & CO: Chatom Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Hamza Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Va. MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Retirement Plan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Kharoufa Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Ct. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Harvey Appeals Dismissal of Data Breach Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chalmers Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. NATURES BAKERY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fig Bars' False Ads NELNET SERVICING: Appeals Injunction Order in Golden Class Suit NEW YORK, NY: Immigrants Eligible to Civil Rights Class Settlement NICK & ERNIE'S: Jasso Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, IMWL PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Golden Suit PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit PLANET HOME: Suit Alleges Violation of Servicemembers' Relief Act PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Torres Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir. QUEENSLAND HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination RB HEALTH: O'Dea Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ROSE HILLS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Gonzales Suit to 9th Cir. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Brown et al. Suit Over Defective Ranges SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Class Opposition Docs in Consumer Suit SELECTQUOTE INC: West Palm Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit SPOTHERO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Parking Fee Reservations STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Gulick Suit to 10th Cir. STOCKX LLC: Faces Mansfield Class Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid TENNESSEE: Fails to Protect Foster Children, Class Suit Says TRADER JOE'S: Morrison Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Vandermeer Appeals Suit Dismissal to Federal Circuit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ahmad Estate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. VANGUARD GROUP: Judge Rejects $40-Mil. Class Action Settlement VINCENT NADON: Sexual Assault Class Settlement Reaches $21-Mil. WALGREEN CO: Flores Suit Removed to E.D. California WELLS FARGO: Appeals Class Cert. Order in SEB Suit to 9th Circuit ZA RESTAURANT: George Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ZYNGA INC: Dougherty et al. Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices ********* 301 SCRUBS: Guccione Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- MELISSA GUCCIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 301 SCRUBS INVESTORS, LLC, d/b/a SCRUBS & BEYOND LLC, d/b/a KINDTHREAD, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01593-MTL (D. Ariz., May 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, where Plaintiff provided her PII directly to Defendant as a condition of receiving employment with Defendant. Between June 6, 2024 and June 9, 2024, an unauthorized actor acquired files off its system, which contained the PII of individuals that was being stored on Defendant's network. On May 1, 2025, the Defendant sent a Notice of Data Breach letter to Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them about the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ, 301 Scrubs Investors, LLC is a retailer that offers medical scrubs in over 100 stores throughout 30 states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com 3M COMPANY: Rooker Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as William Dooley, et al., and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-901377.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on May 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00755-GMB. The Plaintiffs assert claims against all Defendants, including 3M, for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability (statutory), strict liability (Restatement), fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. Plaintiffs assert claims against the "DuPont Defendants" for fraudulent transfer.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com AANIIIH NAKODA: Faces Hearn Suit Over Illegal Loan Rates -------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA HEARN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. AANIIIH NAKODA FINANCE, LLC d/b/a BRIGHT LENDING, TOTAL MANAGEMENT, INC., BORROWWORKS FINANCIAL, INC., BORROWWORKS DECISION SCIENCE, INC., BENJAMIN E. GATZKE, JEFF FORSEY, and CLARITY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00525-MMH-SJH (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2025) arises under Defendants' alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On or around January 5, 2023, the Defendant made a loan to Plaintiff Hearn, which was in the principal amount of $500. However, the loan had an annual percentage rate of 699.9953 percent -- a rate that is illegal most states, including Florida. Aaniiih Nakoda Finance, LLC is an online payday lender offering short-term loans to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon D. Morgan, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P. A. 2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite A. Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 567-3434 Facsimile: (855) 500-0705 E-mail: BMorgan@SeraphLegal.com TBonan@SeraphLegal.com ABM AVIATION: Appeals Arbitration Order in Cocom Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABM AVIATION, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Robert Cocom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08389-WLH-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Oct. 17, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Wesley L. Hsu denied on Dec. 27, 2024. The Court finds that ABM's Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable, thus its motion to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and stay the action is denied. The appellate case is entitled Cocom v. ABM Aviation, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3246, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERT COCOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jeffrey Marc Schwartz, Esq. Vincent Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Defendants-Appellants ABM AVIATION, INC., et al. are represented by: Sean A. O'Brien, Esq. Laura Fleming, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS, LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 AES CORP: Siegel Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN SIEGEL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Martin Siegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jay Morse, et al., Defendants, and The AES Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2024-0628-NAC, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Martin Siegel is a stockholder of The AES Corporation, a Delaware-incorporated energy company. In August 2023, the Company's board of directors amended AES's advance notice bylaws. At that time, the Board consisted of Jay Morse, Gerard M. Anderson, Janet Davidson, Andres Gluski, Holly Keller Koeppel, Julie Laulis, Alain Monie, Moises Naim, Teresa Sebastian, Maura Shaughnessy, and Tarun Khanna. In June 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this action challenging the Advance Notice Bylaws, 10 months after their adoption. The Plaintiff neither intends to nominate a director to the AES Board, nor is aware of any stockholder who does. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court granted on Apr. 14, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Martin Siegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Jay Morse, et al., Case No. 25-218, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on May 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARTIN SIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 - and - Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq. Vivek Upadhya, Esq. William G. Passannante II, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Edward Timlin, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Lori Marks-Esterman, Esq. Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. OLSHAN FROME & WOLOSKY 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 451-2300 - and - Michele S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 629-4900 Defendants-Appellees JAY MORSE, et al. are represented by: Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Matthew W. Murphy, Esq. John M. O'Toole, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7700 - and - Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq. Elizabeth A. Benshoff, Esq. Daniel C. Loesing, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 600 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 469-3939 ALCHEMEE LLC: O'Dea Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCINDA O'DEA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Lucinda O'Dea, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alchemee, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07049-SB-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged consumer fraud over its failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne treatment products. On Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Nov. 4, 2024. On Jan. 13, 2025, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Blumenfeld granted on Apr. 22, 2025. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed on the merits with prejudice for failure to state a claim, except that the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing. The appellate case is captioned O'Dea, et al. v. Alchemee, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-3271, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on May 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on June 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 12, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCINDA O'DEA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - R. Jason Richards, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 - and - Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 - and - Stephanie Sherman, Esq. R. Brent Wisner, Esq. WISNER BAUM, LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 - and - Mark Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Defendants-Appellees ALCHEMEE, LLC, et al. are represented by: Katie A. Stricklin, Esq. WALSWORTH, FRANKLIN, BEVINS & MCCALL, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1150 Irvine, CA 92612 - and - David Simon Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 - and - Paul Boehm, Esq. 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Class Filing Cert Amended to June 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et. al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order re joint stipulation to amend case schedule as follows: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on May 28, 2026 Motions in Limine Last Date to File Motion for Class June 20, 2024 Certification: Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Aug. 22, 2024 for Class Certification: Last Date to File Reply in Support of Sept. 19, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: In-Person Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 31, 2024 Certification: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Mar. 14, 2024 Pleadings/Add Parties: Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 10, 2025 Allstate offers home, auto and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zjElt9 at no extra charge.[CC] AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by June 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA TERRELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMBASSADOR PERSONNEL, INC., NASHVILLE WIRE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, and MID-SOUTH WIRE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00653 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Alistair Newbern entered an order granting the joint motion to extend briefing deadlines for plaintiff's motion for class certification. Event Deadline Class Discovery and Related Motions: March 14, 2025 Motions for Class Action Certification: April 18, 2025 Responses in Opposition to Plaintiff's June 27, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Plaintiff's Optional Reply: July 11, 2025 Joint Discovery Statement: Aug. 8, 2025 Next Case Management Conference: Aug. 12, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Ambassador is a staffing and human resources company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GLHwoN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Curt M. Masker, Esq. RICKARD MASKER, PLC 810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314 Nashville, TN 37228 Telephone: (615) 200-8289 Facsimile: (615) 821-0632 E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com curt@maskerfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason M. Pannu, Esq. Emily M. Walker, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP Roundabout Plaza 1600 Division Street, Suite 590 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 208-5890 E-mail: jason.pannu@fmglaw.com emily.walker@fmglaw.com - and - C. Jason Willcox, Esq. MOORE CLARKE DuVALL & RODGERS, P.C Post Office Drawer 71727 Albany, GA 31708-1727 Telephone: (229) 888-3338 E-mail: jwillcox@mcdr-law.com - and - Daniel Crowell, Esq. BARTON LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2911 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 340-6790 E-mail: dcrowell@bartonesq.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Appeals Denied DeCert. Bid in Overby FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its cross-motion for decertification and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Thomas Overby, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Apr. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On May 30, 2024, the Defendant filed a cross motion for decertification. On Mar. 27, 2025, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendant's cross-motion for decertification. The Plaintiffs were designated as the class representatives, and Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC and Butler Curwood PLC were authorized to serve as counsel for the class in this action. The appellate case is captioned Thomas Overby, Jr. v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Case No. 25-1520, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees THOMAS OVERBY, JR., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 - and - Thomas James Eiler, Esq. Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. Robert Wesley Thayer Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 (919) 389-7470 Defendant-Appellant ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC is represented by: Robert George Lian, Jr., Esq. Margaret O'Brien Rusconi, Esq. James Edward Tysse, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4358 (202) 887-4061 (202) 887-4571 APPLE INC: Accardi Sues Over False and Misleading Campaign ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Accardi, Linda Andrews, Brian Beach, Patricia Bush, Devin Lloyd, and Adam Ragsdale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-04160 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for false and misleading nature of its Apple Intelligence promotional campaign. Between June 10, 2024 and March 7, 2025, (the "Relevant Period"), Apple and its officers misrepresented that advanced AI-based Siri features would be available for the iPhone 16 and that these features were a primary reason for customers to buy the iPhone 16. In fact, Apple had yet to develop these features and had no reasonable basis to promise consumers that these features would be introduced as part of the iPhone 16 product cycle. Apple's misrepresentations to consumers misled even the most sophisticated institutional followers of Apple. Apple investors widely expected iPhone sales to enjoy a particularly strong year in 2024 and 2025 due primarily to Apple's promised introduction of these advanced AI-based Siri features for iPhone 16. Some investors labelled the iPhone 16 sales cycle "The Great Apple Intelligence iPhone Super Cycle." The iPhone 16 otherwise lacked major changes. Investors factored strong expected iPhone 16 sales into their valuation of Apple. Ultimately, Apple had to confess that it the AI-based Siri features that it had promised consumers and touted as reasons to purchase iPhone 16 devices had not yet been developed and would not be introduced as part of the iPhone 16 product cycle. In promising that advanced AI-based Siri features would be available during the iPhone 16 product cycle and advertising iPhone 16 Devices on the basis of that promise, Apple violated numerous laws designed to prevent exactly this sort of consumer deception. Consumers relied on Apple's promises in purchasing iPhone 16 Devices. Consumers would not have purchased iPhone 16 Devices, or would not have paid as much for them, had Apple not misled them to believe that these Devices would be able to do things they could not do, and would not be able to do for years, if ever, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are owners of iPhone 16 Devices. Apple develops, sells to consumers, markets, and directs into the stream of commerce iPhone 16 Devices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com APPLE INC: Environmental Defense Fund Backed Greenwashing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Clancy, writing for Trellis, reports that EDF is backing Apple in a class-action greenwashing suit. Key Takeaways: -- Apple is being sued over carbon neutrality claims for several Apple Watch models. -- A ruling in favor of the class action plaintiffs would require companies to independently verify carbon credit projects. -- EDF, which doesn't take funding from corporations, is often critical of corporate climate action it considers ineffectual. Apple's motion to dismiss a class-action suit over alleged greenwashing has attracted an unusual ally, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Apple was sued in late February over the carbon neutral label it uses to market several models of its Series 9 Apple Watch. The complaint, which represents seven buyers, alleges that the carbon credits Apple uses to help make that claim -- from forest projects in Kenya and China -- don't actually reduce carbon emissions. Apple should have done a better job to make sure they were worthwhile, the plaintiffs said. EDF's amicus brief, filed May 15, defends the practices that Apple uses to make its claims, describing the company's practices in the 25-page filing as "eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice." It's the first time that EDF has weighed in on a corporate legal challenge of this nature, said Elizabeth Sturcken, EDF's vice president of net-zero ambition and action. "We've filed this amicus brief because Apple is an undeniable climate leader. Investors, employees and consumers are asking for companies to take climate action," Sturcken said. "Companies need to be able to communicate this leadership. And more broadly, we need to see this leading climate action scale across the private sector, not get penalized." The environmental nonprofit acknowledges that concerns about the integrity of credits issued on the voluntary carbon market are warranted, but stricter methodologies by several industry groups are addressing those concerns. Besides, it argues, Apple pursues a "robust" strategy to cut its climate footprint before buying credits in the first place. Specifically, Apple reduces the emissions associated with manufacturing the Apple Watch models in question by approximately 75 percent through the use of recycled materials, fiber-based packaging and changes to its shipping methods that favor lower-carbon alternatives. It buys verified carbon credits to cover the remaining 25 percent. A duty to double-check One central complaint the plaintiffs make in the class action suit is that Apple didn't do enough to guarantee that the projects behind the Apple Watches are producing meaningful carbon reductions. One initiative is under investigation, and the suit argues that Apple should have independently verified the credits being issued. The ability to buy high-quality carbon credits is important for corporations that have set net-zero goals, and finding in favor of the plaintiffs could set a precedent that would "inject significant uncertainty into, and possibly paralyze, the voluntary carbon market," EDF argues in the brief. "Because few companies have the resources or expertise to engage in comprehensive (and duplicative) investigation of every offset project, plaintiffs' legal theory would chill corporate action to mitigate climate change." In the brief's conclusion, EDF notes: "Requiring companies to independently verify every single offset project would disincentivize them from using their resources to support precisely the sort of emission-reduction projects society needs to address the climate crisis." Unusual ally It's relatively uncommon for environmental nonprofits to support corporations in a greenwashing case, said lawyer Daniel Cherrin, founder and president of North Coast Strategies, which specializes in reputation management. "EDF isn't defending Apple's brand, they are defending a model of climate leadership rooted in transparency, decarbonization and credible use of offsets," Cherrin said. "The voluntary carbon market isn't perfect, but it's working, and despite what many climate activists think, companies like Apple are using it to lead meaningful efforts to slow the impact of climate change." Apple declined to comment on the amicus brief, pointing Trellis to the statement it made when the lawsuit was filed that said it is proud of its carbon neutral products. On May 19, the class action plaintiffs updated their complaint to demand a jury trial in the matter. A hearing on Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 27 in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. [GN] ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT: MacArthur Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN MACARTHUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a PUTNAM RIDGE NURSING HOME, Case No. 7:25-cv-04125 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) seeks to recover liquidated and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and other manual workers on a biweekly basis. As a result, the Defendant violated the requirement that manual workers be paid on a weekly basis in accordance with NYLL and the requirement that employees "be paid on the regular pay day" under FLSA. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a "manual worker" having worked for Defendant in Brewster, New York as a Certified Nursing Assistant. The Defendant operates Putnam Ridge, a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Brewster, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 E-mail: mhussain@bm.net - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net manderson@bm.net AVVO INC: Faces Louw-Defazio Suit Over Publicity Rights Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- JOAN LOUW-DEFAZIO; and DANIEL CONCANNON; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVVO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00868 (W.D. Wash., May 9, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating Washington's Personality Rights Act, the California Right of Publicity Law, and the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. Allegedly, the Defendant has created, published, and disseminated over one million attorney "profile" pages. On each attorney "profile" page, Defendant uses the name, identity, and personally identifying information of one attorney to advertise its own products and services. However, the Defendant never requested nor obtained consent from any of the attorneys whose names, identities, and other personal details it has misappropriated on these attorney "profile" pages prior to publishing and disseminating the pages, says the suit. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Avvo, Inc. owns and operates the website Avvo.com, which maintains an online legal directory, and offers attorney referral platform and a suite of marketing tools designed for lawyers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3331 E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com AXON ENTERPRISE: GovernmentGPT Appeals Court Orders to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GOVERNMENTGPT, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled GovernmentGPT, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Axon Enterprise, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01869-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged engagement in a series of anticompetitive, monopolistic, and deceptive practices in the market for body-worn cameras and digital evidence management systems used by law enforcement agencies across the United States. On Nov. 1, 2024, Defendant Axon Enterprise, Inc. filed a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Susan M. Brnovich granted on Apr. 3, 2025. The Court ordered to award attorneys' fees totaling $78,677.00 and costs totaling $74.95 against Plaintiff Raj Abhyanker. On Apr. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the enforcement of sanctions. On Apr. 18, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike, which Judge Brnovich granted on May 1, 2025. The Court also entered an Order granting GovernmentGPT's motion for voluntary dismissal and dismissing the entire action without prejudice. GovernmentGPT's motion to stay the enforcement of sanctions is also denied. The appellate case is captioned GovernmentGPT, Inc., et al. v. Axon Enterprise, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2908, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 6, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 15, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 16, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 24, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GOVERNMENTGPT, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appear pro se. Defendants-Appellees AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., et al. are represented by: Pamela Beth Petersen, Esq. Gayathiri Shanmuganatha, Esq. AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. 17800 N. 85th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85255 - and - Randy Papetti, Esq. PAPETTI SAMUELS WEISS MCKIRGAN, LLP 16430 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 290 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 - and - Russell P. Cohen, Esq. DECHERT, LLP 45 Fremont Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Victoria Romine, Esq. PERKINS COIE, LLP 2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 500 Phoenix, AZ 85016 - and - Ian M. Fischer, Esq. JABURG WILK, PC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 BANK OF AMERICA: Tran Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A. The case is styled as Mikaela Tran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-01232-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Bank of America, N.A. -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is the second-largest banking institution in the United States and the second-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae Kook Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (626) 550-1250 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 762-1900 Fax: (858) 313-1850 Email: todd@lcllp.com BAR 9 ENTERTAINMENT: Court Awards $2,160 Atty's Fees in Cruz ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miriam Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bar 9 Entertainment, Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-03133-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order awarding the Plaintiff a reduced amount of costs, expenses and atty's fees in the amount of $2,637.00 comprised of: -- $477 in costs and expenses and -- $2,160 in atty's fees Bar 9 provides intimate, brick-walled hangout with a bar menu, pool table, karaoke, theme parties & trivia nights. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=anZdma at no extra charge.[CC] BDO USA: Files Writ of Certiorari in New England Suit to Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- BDO USA, LLP filed on May 9, 2025, a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-1151, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case captioned BDO USA, LLP, Petitioner vs. New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds, et al., Case No. 20-1643. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner BDO USA, LLP is represented by: Paul Whitfield Hughes, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 500 North Capitol Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Email: phughes@mwe.com BINANCE HOLDINGS: Baratta Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Baratta, Jason Rappaport, Donald Douty, Thomas Viola, Hyacinth Ahuruonye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Binance Holdings Ltd doing business as: Binance; BAM Trading Services Inc. doing business as: BINANCE.US, a Delaware Corporation; Changpeng Zhao, Case No. 2:25-cv-00639 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22202-MD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Binance Holdings Ltd., branded Binance -- https://www.binance.com/en-NZ/ is a global company that operates the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of daily trading volume of cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Chris N. Ryder, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206/623-1900 Fax: 206/623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com cryder@kellerrohrback.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Evan J. Kaufman, Esq. Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com johlmann@rgrdlaw.com - and - Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com - and - David C. Silver, Esq. Jason S. Miller, Esq. SILVER MILLER 4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: 954/516-6000 Email: dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com jmiller@silvermillerlaw.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404/504-6555 Fax: 404/504-6501 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com BITFARMS LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due July 8 --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bitfarms Ltd. (NASDAQ: BITF) securities between March 21, 2023 and December 9, 2024. Bitfarms operates integrated Bitcoin (also referred to as "BTC") data centers in Canada, the U.S., Paraguay, and Argentina. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Bitfarms Ltd. (BITF) Maintained Deficient Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Bitfarms maintained deficient internal controls over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company incorrectly categorized proceeds derived from the sale of digital assets as a cash flow from operating activities rather than as a cash flow from investing activities; (iii) in addition, the Company overstated the extent to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate, the material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting related to its classification of the 2021 Warrants; (iv) the foregoing errors caused Bitfarms to misstate various items in several of the Company's previously issued financial statements; and (v) as a result, these financial statements were inaccurate and would likely need to be restated. The complaint alleges that on December 9, 2024, Bitfarms issued a press release announcing that its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years 2022 and 2023 contained a material error related to the classification of proceeds from digital asset sales and would need to be restated. Specifically, the Company revealed that "Bitfarms previously categorized proceeds derived from the sale of digital assets as a cash flow from operating activities. In conjunction with the SEC review, it was determined that proceeds from the sale of digital assets should be classified as cash flow from investing activities." Additionally, Bitfarms stated that it was also restating its financials "to adjust for an error in the accounting for the redemption of warrants in 2023." On this news, Bitfarms' stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 6.07%, to close at $2.01 per share on December 10, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Bitfarms Ltd. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class are required to file their papers with the court by July 8, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Bitfarms Ltd. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] BLUE SHIELD: Quang Sues Over Disclosure of Information ------------------------------------------------------ Martha-Ann Quang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 25CV121921 (Cal. Super Ct., Alameda Cty., May 6, 2025), is brought to seek redress for Blue Shield's illegal conduct in disclosing Members' Protected Information, to enjoin Blue Shield from future disclosure of Members' Protected Information, and to require Blue Shield to fully inform Members regarding the specific Protected Information disclosed through its Web Properties and to identify to Members each third party to which Protected Information was disclosed. On April 9, 2025, Defendant Blue Shield acknowledged that it has disclosed its insureds' ("Members") protected health information ("PHI") and confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") (collectively referred to as "Protected Information") to unauthorized third parties through its Blue Shield websites and Blue Shield mobile web application (the "Web Properties"). The third parties include Google LLC. Defendant Blue Shield owned and operated those websites and apps. Blue Shield authorized and enabled tracking technologies on those Web Properties and apps. These technologies include the Google Analytics tool, and other related tracking and advertising tools such as Google Ads (collectively, "Tracking Technologies" or "Tracking Tools"). These Tracking Technologies allow unauthorized third parties to intercept and read the contents of patients' private communications and access patients' Private Information. Third parties use this private information for their own personal gain and for purposes unrelated to the provision of healthcare, including monetizing it to deliver targeted advertisements to specific individuals. As a result of Blue Shield's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured, including by invasion of privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of their Protected Information, statutory damages, and the continued and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud due to the exposure of their Protected Information. Plaintiff and Class Members must also devote substantial time, money, and energy to monitor and investigate fraudulent activity resulting from the exposure of their Protected Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Protected Information to the Defendant. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California is a mutual benefit corporation and health plan, founded in 1939 by the California Medical Association.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 445-4003 Fax: (415) 445-4020 Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Waziri Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Elyas Waziri, an individual, and others similarity v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM FREMONT, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-117181 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04166. The complaint includes only one cause of action: a violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com - and - Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Appeals Summary Judgment to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ORION EDDLEMON is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Orion Eddlemon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bradley University, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff's action arises out of Defendant Bradley's decision during the Spring 2020 Semester to retain the full amount of tuition and full amount of Activity and Course Surcharge Fees paid, despite being unable to provide students, like the Plaintiff, with the entire 15 weeks of in-person and on-campus educational services that they agreed to, contracted for, and paid for. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On Apr. 18, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as moot. The appellate case is entitled Orion Eddlemon v. Bradley University, Case No. 25-1716, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brian Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Defendant-Appellee BRADLEY UNIVERSITY is represented by: Kara Angeletti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 456-8400 BRIGHT DATA: Seeks Denial of X's Bid to Extend Proposed Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as X CORP., v. BRIGHT DATA LTD., Case No. 3:23-cv-03698-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying X's motion to extend the Proposed Schedule and granting Bright Data's alternative proposal as follows. Event Bright Data's Deadline Close of fact discovery: Dec. 1, 2025 Close of expert discovery: Jan. 4, 2026 Dispositive motions: Jan. 12, 2026 Final pretrial conference: March 27, 2026 Jury trial commences: May 4, 2026 X's demand for more time is not grounded in any sense of proportion. Its proposal is designed to drive up costs and give it more time to go after Bright Data's customers, all under the pretense of needing to "discover" more information about who X competes with. At some point, there must be a limit to discovery. Bright is a global technology company that offers web data collection and proxy services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dlyFcl at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robert C. Goodman, Esq. Lauren Kramer Sujeeth, Esq. ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL, PC 311 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 956-2828 E-mail: rgoodman@rjo.com lsujeeth@rjo.com - and - Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Genesis Sanchez Tavarez, Esq. Colin R. Kass, Esq. Erica T. Jones, Esq. Timothy E. Burroughs, Esq. David A. Munkittrick, Esq. Reut N. Samuels, Esq. Michael R. Clifford Beckwith, Esq. Peter C. Angelica, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Telephone: (310) 284-5652 E-mail: sladak@proskauer.com gsancheztavarez@proskauer.com ckass@proskauer.com ejones@proskauer.com tburroughs@proskauer.com dmunkittrick@proskauer.com rsamuels@proskauer.com mbeckwith@proskauer.com pangelica@proskauer.com BUFFALO, NY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Black Love Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF BUFFALO, N.Y., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Black Love Resists in the Rust, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, N.Y., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-719, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints (the "Checkpoints"). Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers, in accordance with an implicit quota system, continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Christina Clair Reiss granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 22, 2025. The Court finds class certification a superior means of adjudicating this case for the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes. The appellate case is captioned City of Buffalo v. Black Love Resists in the Rust, Case No. 25-1191, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 8, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners CITY OF BUFFALO, N.Y., et al. are represented by: Peter Sahasrabudhe, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Building 10-11 140 Pearl Street Buffalo, NY 14202 BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Frame Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FRAME, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BUNKHOUSE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00755 (W.D. Tex., May 16, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant operates a series of hotels in Texas, Mexico, Kentucky, and California. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information of current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The Defendant operates a series of hotels in Texas, Mexico, Kentucky, and California. As part of its business, Defendant receives and maintains the PII/PHI of thousands of its current and former employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 401 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com BUS PATROL: Morgulis Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SARAH MORGULIS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Sarah Morgulis, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bus Patrol America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-113, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sarah Morgulis brings this putative class action against the Defendant alleging that it fraudulently issued notices of liability to those accused of passing stopped school buses. On Mar. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Apr. 12, 2024. On Aug. 1, 2024, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Aug. 20, 2024, the Plaintiff filed second amended complaint. On Oct. 10, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint, which Judge Ramos granted on Apr. 11, 2025. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's second amended complaint failed to state a claim. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The appellate case is captioned Morgulis v. Bus Patrol America, LLC, Case No. 25-1224, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SARAH MORGULIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Martin Bienstock, Esq. BIENSTOCK PLLC 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Defendant-Appellee BUS PATROL AMERICA, LLC is represented by: Timothy Sini, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 275 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 CARPENTER CO: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pedro Torres, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. CARPENTER CO., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2501710 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01188. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 8 purported causes of action for: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Andrew W. Russell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com arussell@mcguirewoods.com CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- AIDAN CONRICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARSON'S OF MALTA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00585-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 9, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and the applicable provisions of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server at Defendant's restaurant from in or around August 2024 through in or around April 2025. Allegedly, the Defendant violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated pipped workers to share tips with managers and supervisors. Carson's of Malta, Inc. owns and operates the restaurant, Carson's Woodside Tavern, which is located at 57 NY-9P Malta, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com CERES CLASSIC: Continues to Defend Camelot Event Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ceres Classic L.P. 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 the Camelot Event securities class suit in the Supreme Court of New York. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of NY a purported class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against ViacomCBS ("Viacom"), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including the Company, of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1,700 million Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1,000 million offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the "Offerings"). The complaint seeks certification of the class of plaintiffs and unspecified compensatory damages and alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material misrepresentations and omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including the Company, had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP ("Archegos"), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint also alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos's concentrated Viacom positions at the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including the Company, had intended to unwind Archegos's Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying motions to dismiss as to the Company and the other underwriters, but granting the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including the Company, filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision as to the Company and other underwriter defendants that had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its officers and directors. On July 25, 2024, the Appellate Division denied the plaintiff's and the Company's respective motions for leave to reargue or appeal the April 4, 2024 decision. On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, which the defendants have appealed. Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in 1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products. CFSB BANCORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Hometown Financial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating CFSB Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: CFSB), relating to the proposed merger with Hometown Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, CFSB shareholders will receive $14.25 in cash for each share of CFSB common stock. Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cfsb-bancorp-inc-cfsb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] CIGNA CORPORATE: Adair et al. Sue Over Disclosure of Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY M. ADAIR, CARLA DANIELSON, KATHERINE J. EMRICK, PRESTON PHAM, and EVA D. RECCHIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CIGNA CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, and THE CIGNA GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02384 (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2025) challenges Defendants' practice of surreptitiously intercepting and misusing personal, and highly sensitive, health-related information from the www.cigna.com website. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit against Defendants for violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania common law. The Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, WESCA and Pennsylvania common law by wiretapping the electronic health-related communications of Plaintiffs and other users of Defendants' website. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek all civil remedies provided under the alleged causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, treble, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, Cigna Corporate Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cigna Group, a health services company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. Nathan D. Stump, Esq. Chen Kasher, Esq. Sean M. Milford, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com aschlichter@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com nstump@uselaws.com ckasher@uselaws.com smilford@uselaws.com CLOVER LEAF: Faces Haese Suit Over Illegal Overtime Pay Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN HAESE, individually and for others similarly situated v. CLOVER LEAF SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a CLOVER LEAF SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00460 (D.N.M., May 16, 2025) alleges that Clover Leaf's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by depriving Haese and the other Straight Time Workers of the "time and a half" overtime premium they are owed for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. According to the complaint, Clover Leaf pays Haese and the other Straight Time Workers by the hour. Haese and the other Straight Time Workers regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Clover Leaf does not pay Haese and its other Straight Time Workers required premium overtime wages. Instead, Clover Leaf pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Clover Leaf applies its straight time for overtime pay scheme to Haese and its other Straight Time Workers regardless of allegedly individualized differences. Clover Leaf never paid Haese and the other Straight Time Workers on a salary basis, the suit asserts. CLOVER LEAF SOLUTIONS, LLC is a technology consulting firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP TX Bar No. 24078444 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Gustin Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Gustin, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG01577 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00579-BAM. The Complaint asserts the following nine causes of action: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chris A. Jalian, Esq. Aja Nunn, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 Email: chrisjalian@paulhastings.com ajanunn@paulhastings.com COINBASE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, McAfee Says --------------------------------------------------------- ADAM MCAFEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE, INC. and COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04137 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) is a class action against Coinbase for their failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information including, inter alia, names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, masked bank-account numbers and some bank account identifiers, Government ID images (e.g., driver's license, passport), account data (such as balance snapshots and transaction history), and limited corporate data (including documents, training material, and communications available to support agents); and for their failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. According to the complaint, in order to obtain the Defendants' services, Coinbase's customers are required to directly or indirectly entrust Coinbase with their PII, which Coinbase uses in order to perform their regular business services. As a cryptocurrency exchange, Coinbase therefore knowingly collects and stores sensitive PII of their customers, and has a resulting duty to secure such information from unauthorized access and exfiltration. Coinbase expressly recognizes these duties, representing that "We at Coinbase respect and protect the privacy of those who explore our Services." Despite their duties to safeguard individuals' PII, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase became aware of a cybersecurity incident as Coinbase received an email communication from an unknown threat actor claiming to have obtained information about certain Coinbase customer accounts, as well as internal Coinbase documentation, including materials relating to customer service and account-management systems. The communication demanded ransom in exchange for not publicly disclosing the information. The threat actor appears to have obtained this information by paying multiple contractors or employees working in support roles outside the United States to collect information from internal Coinbase systems (Data Breach). As a direct and proximate result of Coinbase's negligent failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff’s and Class Members' PII, says the suit. Coinbase is a cryptocurrency exchange with a quarterly trading volume of $393 billion. Coinbase's mission is to "increase economic freedom for more than 1 billion people."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Must Oppose Gershzon Class Cert Bid by July 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered an order modifying case 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): Colgate-Palmolive specializes in the production, distribution, and provision of household, health care, personal care, and veterinary products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mv1T6p 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 COMPASS GROUP: Matthews Balks at Misleading Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT J. MATTHEWS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS GROUP DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS, LLC., COMPASS DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS, MORDECHAI HAIM FERDER, ELIAS J. SABO, RYAN J. FAULKINGHAM, and STEPHEN KELLER, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00981 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2025), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Compass securities between May 1, 2024, and May 7, 2025, inclusive. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made statements that were materially false and misleading. The Defendants released those statements even if there are certain unrecorded financing arrangements and irregularities identified in sales, cost of sales, inventory, and accounts receivable recorded by Compass' subsidiary, Lugano Holdings, Inc., says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Westport, CT, Compass Group Diversified Holdings, LLC operates as a holding company. Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CODI", and its three classes of preferred stock trade on the NYSE as "CODI-PB", "CODI-PA", and "CODI-PC."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CORE NATURAL RESOURCES: Nelson Suit Removed to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sean Nelson, individually and for others similarly situated v. CORE NATURAL RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a Arch Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2025CV30015 was removed from the the District Court of Gunnison County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on May 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01523. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts class action claims alleging that Defendant failed to pay wages to Plaintiff and other employees in violation of the Colorado Wage Act, Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and associated Colorado regulations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, Colorado 80528 Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendants are represented by: Owen M. Davis, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 749-7200 Fax: (303) 749-7272 Email: Owen.Davis@huschblackwell.com CORELLE BRANDS: Buksbaum Sues Over Deceitful Express Warranties --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharyn Buksbaum and Courtney Herman, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORELLE BRANDS LLC d/b/a INSTANT POT, Case No. 3:25-cv-01247-DMS-JLB (S.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 CORTEVA INC: Aaron, et al., Must Submit Expert Declarations ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01599 (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for entry of a case management order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit expert declarations confirming their injuries and proximate causation. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any proposed revisions to the Defendants' proposed case management order not later than May 30, 2025. The Defendants may reply not later than June 6, 2025. -- Alternatively, the parties may submit a joint case management order not later than May 30, 2025. For ease of administration, and because the defendants have filed this motion in each of the related cases, the court will issue a single order in case no. 7:23-CV-1114. The clerk shall enter a copy of this order in each of the following cases and the plaintiffs shall comply with its requirements: -- Beverly Brown, et al., v. Corteva, Inc. et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1409); -- Page Ritchie, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1465); -- Berdie E. Boone, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1473); -- Amy Godwin, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1500); -- Devon Bartholomew, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1592); -- Steven Aaron, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1599); and -- Constance Baker, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1666). Having considered all the relevant factors, the court finds the eight related cases warrant a Lone Pine order to facilitate case management and to avoid undue burden to the defendants and the court. The court, however, will not immediately enter defendants' proposed case management order. Instead, the court will provide the plaintiffs with a period to submit any proposed revisions to the defendants' proposed case management order. On June 30, 2023, Mr. Conklin filed a complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss Conklin's complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a memorandum in support. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rpB7J8 at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Baker Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01666 (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for entry of a case management order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit expert declarations confirming their injuries and proximate causation. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any proposed revisions to the Defendants' proposed case management order not later than May 30, 2025. The Defendants may reply not later than June 6, 2025. -- Alternatively, the parties may submit a joint case management order not later than May 30, 2025. For ease of administration, and because the defendants have filed this motion in each of the related cases, the court will issue a single order in case no. 7:23-CV-1114. The clerk shall enter a copy of this order in each of the following cases and the plaintiffs shall comply with its requirements: -- Beverly Brown, et al., v. Corteva, Inc. et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1409); -- Page Ritchie, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1465); -- Berdie E. Boone, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1473); -- Amy Godwin, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1500); -- Devon Bartholomew, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1592); -- Steven Aaron, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1599); and -- Constance Baker, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1666). Having considered all the relevant factors, the court finds the eight related cases warrant a Lone Pine order to facilitate case management and to avoid undue burden to the defendants and the court. The court, however, will not immediately enter defendants' proposed case management order. Instead, the court will provide the plaintiffs with a period to submit any proposed revisions to the defendants' proposed case management order. On June 30, 2023, Mr. Conklin filed a complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss Conklin's complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a memorandum in support. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dATdb8 at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Bartholomew Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARTHOLOMEW, et al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01592 (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for entry of a case management order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit expert declarations confirming their injuries and proximate causation. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any proposed revisions to the Defendants' proposed case management order not later than May 30, 2025. The Defendants may reply not later than June 6, 2025. -- Alternatively, the parties may submit a joint case management order not later than May 30, 2025. For ease of administration, and because the defendants have filed this motion in each of the related cases, the court will issue a single order in case no. 7:23-CV-1114. The clerk shall enter a copy of this order in each of the following cases and the plaintiffs shall comply with its requirements: -- Beverly Brown, et al., v. Corteva, Inc. et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1409); -- Page Ritchie, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1465); -- Berdie E. Boone, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1473); -- Amy Godwin, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1500); -- Devon Bartholomew, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1592); -- Steven Aaron, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1599); and -- Constance Baker, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1666). Having considered all the relevant factors, the court finds the eight related cases warrant a Lone Pine order to facilitate case management and to avoid undue burden to the defendants and the court. The court, however, will not immediately enter defendants' proposed case management order. Instead, the court will provide the plaintiffs with a period to submit any proposed revisions to the defendants' proposed case management order. On June 30, 2023, Mr. Conklin filed a complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss Conklin's complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a memorandum in support. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLexME at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Bonne Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOONE et al v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01473 (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for entry of a case management order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit expert declarations confirming their injuries and proximate causation. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any proposed revisions to the Defendants' proposed case management order not later than May 30, 2025. The Defendants may reply not later than June 6, 2025. -- Alternatively, the parties may submit a joint case management order not later than May 30, 2025. For ease of administration, and because the defendants have filed this motion in each of the related cases, the court will issue a single order in case no. 7:23-CV-1114. The clerk shall enter a copy of this order in each of the following cases and the plaintiffs shall comply with its requirements: -- Beverly Brown, et al., v. Corteva, Inc. et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1409); -- Page Ritchie, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1465); -- Berdie E. Boone, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1473); -- Amy Godwin, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1500); -- Devon Bartholomew, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al.,(Case No.7:23-CV-1592); -- Steven Aaron, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1599); and -- Constance Baker, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1666). Having considered all the relevant factors, the court finds the eight related cases warrant a Lone Pine order to facilitate case management and to avoid undue burden to the defendants and the court. The court, however, will not immediately enter defendants' proposed case management order. Instead, the court will provide the plaintiffs with a period to submit any proposed revisions to the defendants' proposed case management order. On June 30, 2023, Mr. Conklin filed a complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss Conklin's complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a memorandum in support. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rpjSyW at no extra charge.[CC] CORTEVA INC: Brown Plaintiffs Must Submit Expert Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN et al v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01409 (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for entry of a case management order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit expert declarations confirming their injuries and proximate causation. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any proposed revisions to the Defendants' proposed case management order not later than May 30, 2025. The Defendants may reply not later than June 6, 2025. -- Alternatively, the parties may submit a joint case management order not later than May 30, 2025. For ease of administration, and because the defendants have filed this motion in each of the related cases, the court will issue a single order in case no. 7:23-CV-1114. The clerk shall enter a copy of this order in each of the following cases and the plaintiffs shall comply with its requirements: -- Beverly Brown, et al., v. Corteva, Inc. et al., (Case No. 7:23-CV-1409); -- Page Ritchie, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1465); -- Berdie E. Boone, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1473); -- Amy Godwin, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1500); -- Devon Bartholomew, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1592); -- Steven Aaron, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23- CV-1599); and -- Constance Baker, et al., v. Corteva, Inc., et al., (Case No.7:23-CV-1666). Having considered all the relevant factors, the court finds the eight related cases warrant a Lone Pine order to facilitate case management and to avoid undue burden to the defendants and the court. The court, however, will not immediately enter defendants' proposed case management order. Instead, the court will provide the plaintiffs with a period to submit any proposed revisions to the defendants' proposed case management order. On June 30, 2023, Mr. Conklin filed a complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss Conklin's complaint for failure to state a claim and filed a memorandum in support. Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6N4kIz at no extra charge.[CC] COWBOY CHANNEL: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that The Cowboy Channel agreed to pay $1 million to resolve claims that it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing subscriber information with third parties, such as Google and Meta. The Cowboy Channel settlement benefits anyone who had a subscription to Cowboy Channel Plus between Sept. 25, 2022, and Oct. 9, 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, The Cowboy Channel shared subscriber information with Google, Meta and Yahoo without consent. This allegedly violated the VPPA, which prohibits video providers from sharing information that could identify a consumer as having watched a particular video. The Cowboy Channel is a television network that airs rodeo events, country music and other western-themed programming. The Cowboy Channel has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million settlement to resolve the Cowboy Channel class action allegations. Under the terms of the class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 12, 2025. The final approval hearing for The Cowboy Channel settlement is scheduled for Aug. 7, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 1, 2025. Who's Eligible Anyone who had a subscription to Cowboy Channel Plus between Sept. 25, 2022, and Oct. 9, 2024. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/01/2025 Case Name Saarloos v. The Cowboy Channel LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-02058- KK-SP, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 08/07/2025 Settlement Website CowboyChannelVPPASettlement.com Claims Administrator Saarloos v. The Cowboy Channel LLC Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@CowboyChannelVPPASettlement.com (833) 296-0893 Class Counsel L. Timothy Fisher Yitzchak Kopel BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Teresa C. Chow BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] CRUNCH LLC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Jordan Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRUNCH, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Kristi Jordan, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Crunch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-7118, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to redress Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing the Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and the titles of prerecorded video materials to which they have purchased access to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed an amended motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied on Apr. 28, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had two agreements. The first was for gym membership, and it had an arbitration clause. The second was for a streaming service. It had no arbitration clause. Instead, it had a forum selection clause requiring suit in a particular court. Although the latter is inconsistent with arbitration (Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Schs. Fin. Auth., 764 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2014)), and it would seem that the cause of action arose from that contract, the Plaintiff's original gym membership may control. The parties will have to litigate further before it is clear which contract governs. The appellate case is captioned Jordan v. Crunch, LLC, Case No. 25-1220, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee KRISTI JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Elliot Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Defendant-Appellant CRUNCH, LLC is represented by: James R. Horner, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 CSI ELECTRICAL: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE HUERTA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and as a representative plaintiff, v. CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that CSI's motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: (1) the motion for partial summary judgment is granted as to the Exit Badge Out Claim contained in the First Cause of Action, as to the Second Cause of Action for wage statement penalties under California Labor Code section 226, and as to the Third Cause of Action for waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203; and (2) the motion for partial summary judgment is denied as to the Section 5(A) Claim contained in the First Cause of Action for travel time between the Phase 2 Security Gate and the employee parking lots. CSI has satisfied its initial burden on the Exit Badge Out Claim by presenting evidence that Huerta was paid for the time he spent waiting to badge out through the Phase 2 Security Gate at the end of his shifts. Huerta has failed to satisfy his burden to submit evidence creating a dispute as to that fact. Accordingly, CSI's motion for partial summary judgment on Huerta's Exit Badge Out Claim is granted. CSI has established that its failure to pay the disputed wages, and thus its corresponding alleged violations of section 226 and 203, were objectively reasonable. Huerta has not shown the existence of a material dispute of fact as to whether CSI's conduct was objectively reasonable, or whether CSI acted with subjective bad faith. Accordingly, CSI's motion for partial summary judgment on the Second and Third Causes of Action is granted. CSI provides electrical construction services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1yRZmG at no extra charge.[CC] CURO CREDIT: Barnhardt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Barnhardt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CURO CREDIT, LLC and CURO GROUP HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ATTAIN FINANCE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00706-LA (E.D. Wis., May 14, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40hours in a workweek, by: failing to compensate Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for daily meal breaks, in violation of the WWPCL, which resulted in overtime violations of the FLSA and WWPCL, and regular rate violations of the WWPCL; and failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Consumer Loan Specialist working primarily at Defendants' Greenfield, Wisconsin location in August 2021. The Defendants are financial services entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com DATEFIT LLC: Holifield Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLE HOLIFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DATEFIT, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60524-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery as follows: 1. The deadlines set forth in the Court's Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report are abated. 2. The Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct Class Certification and damages related discovery from the Defendants, including third-party discovery as may be necessary, in support of Class Certification and a final damages judgment. 3. The Court reserves jurisdiction on the issue of damages against the Defendant and reserves ruling on a final damages determination against the Defendant until the completion of discovery and a ruling on Class Certification. 4. The Plaintiff is granted leave to seek a final default judgment against the Defendant, both as to the individual Plaintiff and the putative Class, upon completion of Class Certification and damages discovery from the Defendants and the Court's ruling on Class Certification. Datefit is a multidimensional technology firm focused on mobile dating solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zQrR4S at no extra charge.[CC] DATEFIT LLC: Holifield Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLE HOLIFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DATEFIT, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60524-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion Court for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against the Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), in furtherance of the entry of a final default judgment upon completion of class and damages related discovery. On March 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant. Datefit is a multidimensional technology firm focused on mobile dating solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bQ5eMn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com - and - Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq. AJK LEGAL 1580 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy, Suite 130 Sunrise, FL 33323 Telephone: (888) 815-3350 E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com DAVE & BUSTERS: Locklear FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gabriel Micah Locklear, individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v. Dave & Busters Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 25CV010837-910 was removed from the Wake County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00255-D to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. -- https://www.daveandbusters.com/ -- is an American restaurant and entertainment business headquartered in Dallas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryAnne M. Hamilton, Esq. W. Stacy Miller, II, Esq. MILLER LAW GROUP PO Box 6340 Raleigh, NC 27628 Phone: (919) 348-4361 Fax: (919) 729-2953 Email: maryanne@millerlawgroupnc.com stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie L. Gumm, Esq. POYNER SPRUILL LLP Post Office Box 1801 Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 Phone: (919) 783-2819 Fax: (919) 783-1075 Email: sgumm@poynerspruill.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $1-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ariana Portalatin, writing for Beckers Dental, reports that dental supply company Dentsply Sirona agreed to pay $84 million to settle allegations that it misled investors about financial reporting and anti-competitive practices. The Boynton Beach General Employees' Pension Plan filed the lawsuit in December 2018, accusing Dentsply Sirona of violating federal securities laws by engaging in anticompetitive practices with other supply distributors. Dentsply Sirona was accused of misrepresenting or failing to disclose these practices in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The settlement was preliminarily approved May 16, according to court documents. A settlement hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10 for final approval. [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Medley II, et al., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00724-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file his motion for class certification by 90 days to Sept. 8, 2025. Pursuant to LCvR 23-I(b), the deadline to file for class certification is currently June 10, 2025. However, it is impracticable for the Plaintiff to move for class certification by this date, as the Defendants have both filed motions to dismiss, which will not be fully briefed until May 16, 2025. Accordingly, it is unlikely any meaningful discovery related to class certification will be completed prior to the current deadline to move for class certification, the Plaintiff contends. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wCcruV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com - and - Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com DUNKIN DONUTS: Garland Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHELSEA GARLAND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Chelsea Garland, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06621-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit challenges, as disability discrimination, the extra fee charged for substituting non-dairy alternatives in place of cow's milk in beverages served at Dunkin' Donuts restaurants. On Dec. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against Dunkin' Donuts. On May 31, 2024, the Court granted Dunkin' Donuts LLC's motion to dismiss, due to lack of personal jurisdiction. On Dec. 11, 2024, following jurisdictional discovery, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the franchisee Defendants, which the Defendants moved to dismiss. On Apr. 21, 2025, Judge Susan Illston granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court granted Dunkin's motion to dismiss the claims of the non-California plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dismissal of the non-California Plaintiffs was without prejudice to their re-filing in an appropriate forum. Meanwhile, the Court granted, with prejudice, the motions to dismiss the claims brought by the California-based Plaintiffs for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is entitled Garland, et al. v. Dunkin Donuts Franchising, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2804, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 9, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 9, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on July 18, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on August 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHELSEA GARLAND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Bogdan Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, PC 1220 N. Federal Highway, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33432 - and – Keith L. Gibson, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, PC 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Defendants-Appellees DUNKIN DONUTS FRANCHISING, LLC, et al. are represented by: David Baird Carpenter, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30309 - and – Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 - and – Mark Saul Posard, Esq. GORDON REES, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Indiana Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's relationships with third-party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020, and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco's public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or tangible equity units issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to Hunter. On October 24, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 7, 2023, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 13, 2023. On April 17, 2024, the motion to dismiss was granted. On or about October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on or about March 20, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion for oral argument was denied. The Company said in a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to continue to vigorously defend our position. ELANCO ANIMAL: Continues to Defend Zenrelia(R) Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- On October 7, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Barpar) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Elanco Animal Health Inc. and two of its executives. Barpar alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act),and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for Zenrelia(R), as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and Credelio Quattro(TM). The plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between November 7, 2023 and June 26, 2024. On March 21, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that extended the time period for which the plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities to between May 9, 2023 and June 26, 2024. The amended complaint also removed allegations concerning the approval and launch timelines for our Credelio Quattro product. On November 1, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Lawrence Hollin v. Lawrence E. Kurzius, et al. (Hollin) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against current members of Elanco's Board of Directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Act and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On March 11, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned James Habermehl v. Jeffrey N. Simmons, et al. was filed in Hancock County Circuit Court of Indiana, against the same parties named in Hollin, alleging claims under Indiana state law for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On April 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Christopher Dougherty v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Dougherty), was filed in the District of Maryland, naming certain Elanco executives and 13 Elanco Board members as defendants. Dougherty alleges the defendants engaged in conspiratorial and individually culpable conduct based on materially false or misleading statements and omissions alleged in, referenced or related to, in large part, the putative class action complaint in Barpar, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and as to the certain executives, contribution under Section 15, U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and Section 21D of the Act. The Company says in a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is vigorously defending its positions in connection with each of these actions. ELON MUSK: Aguiar Sues Over Unlawful Monitoring of Communications ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reinaldo Aguiar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELON MUSK, TRAVIS KALANICK, DAVID F. HINE, an attorney residing in Ohio and Partner at the Law Firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP; JAMES CASEY, an individual residing in the United States, believed to be a collaborator in cyber-attacks against competitors of the Defendants; WILMER RUPERTI, and JOHN DOES 1-100, unknown individuals and entities who participated in the conduct alleged herein, Case No. 4:25-cv-02276 (S.D. Tex., May 19, 2025), is brought for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and related state laws, arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful interception, access, and monitoring of the electronic communications and private whereabouts of technology company employees, including Plaintiff and Class Members, without their consent. The Defendants and/or their agents purchased, leased, or otherwise utilized real estate properties neighboring the residences of Plaintiff and Class Members to install electronic equipment for visual and electronic surveillance and to intercept, decrypt, and gain unauthorized access to electronic communications, computer/network traffic, and trade secrets. The Defendants and/or their agents unlawfully gained access to private and confidential information of Plaintiff and Class Members, including but not limited to medical records, insurance records, banking information, and securities transactions, potentially in violation of statutes such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Gramm Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The Defendants intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and/or procured other persons to intercept or endeavor to intercept Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications without their knowledge, authorization, or consent, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by various technology company teams, allegedly under the direct or indirect control or influence of one or more Defendants. Elon Musk is an individual residing in California and Texas, with significant control and influence over various technology companies, including X Corp. (formerly Twitter Inc.) and Tesla, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert Filing in Osterhaus Due Jan. 21, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00039-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Substantial completion of data production: Sept. 18, 2025 Deadline to join additional parties: Feb. 6, 2026 Fact discovery deadline: Aug. 6, 2026 Deadline for Parties to serve expert Sept. 17, 2026 reports on all issues on which they have the burden of proof (class and merits): Deadline to complete expert depositions: Jan. 7, 2027 Deadline to file class certification Jan. 21, 2027 and Daubert motions: Deadline to file opposition to class Feb. 18, 2027 certification and Daubert motions: Deadline to file replies in support of March 11, 2027 Daubert motions and class certification: Express offers pharmacy benefit management services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=txISny at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL SAVINGS: Court Continues Mediation Deadline in Sapan ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-00075-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to continue the mediation deadline set for May 2, 2025. The new deadline to mediate the case is 90 days from the date on which the class certification is decided. Federal Savings Bank is veteran owned bank. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eREJrg at no extra charge.[CC] FENIX INTERNET: Gates Sues Over Automatic Renewing Subscriptions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Gates, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FENIX INTERNET LLC d/b/a OnlyFans.com, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00595-UNA (D. Del., May 13, 2025), is brought alleging in this class action complaint that the Defendant violates California law, the Auto Renewal Law (“ARL”), which is part of California’s False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in connection with automatically renewing subscriptions. Among other things, OnlyFans enrolls consumers in automatic renewal membership programs without providing the “clear and conspicuous” disclosures mandated by California law, and posts charges to consumers’ credit or debit cards for purported membership charges without first obtaining the consumers’ affirmative consent to an agreement containing the requisite clear and conspicuous disclosures. When Plaintiff entered his credit card details and accepted the $4.00 charge, Plaintiff believed that his credit card would be charged at most for a $4.00 subscription. However, approximately a month later, Plaintiff’s credit card was charged $20.00. Plaintiff was not aware that Defendant was going to enroll him in a subscription that would post monthly $20.00 charges to Plaintiff’s credit card, which were considerably higher than expected. Nevertheless, on six occasions, Defendant posted unexpected monthly charges of $20.00 on Plaintiff’s credit card. These additional charges posted by Defendant to Plaintiff’s credit card resulted in receiving less value than he expected and more charges than he consented to. Plaintiff did not wish to spend more than $4.00. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant was going to enroll him in an automatically renewing program that would result in excess charges above $4.00 being posted to his credit card, Plaintiff either would not have submitted his credit card account to Defendant or would have cancelled his subscription to avoid any further charges to his credit card during or after April 2024, says the complaint. The Plaintiff selected a subscription for $4.00 for the Defendant's website. The Defendant offers consumers access to a range of content providers who are then allowed to offer their own subscription plans to the public through its website, OnlyFans.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo CA 94401 Phone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com - and – Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0300 Fax: (302) 777-0301 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their petition to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Jose Madrigal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00733-MRA-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Apr. 8, 2024, the Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration and dismiss class claims, which Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani denied on Apr. 18, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Madrigal v. Ferguson Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2712, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on June 9, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on July 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOSE MADRIGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, PC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 - and – Leslie Lynn Abbott, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Defendants-Appellants FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. are represented by: Leslie Lynn Abbott, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 FIDELITY NATIONAL: Klaus Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE KLAUS, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00514-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins entered an order directing Ms. Klaus's to file a supplemental brief addressing whether she can show a "strong likelihood" that the proposed notice recipients are similarly situated to her within ten days of the date of the Order. Thus, to the extent Ms. Klaus's Motion seeks conditional class certification, the Motion is denied. The Defendants' response, if any, is due ten days thereafter. Both submissions are limited to ten pages. No reply will be permitted. A&L Homecare changed the test for determining whether to issue court-approved notice to potential plaintiffs in an action brought under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A&L Homecare also clarified that "the term 'certification' has no place in FLSA actions." Fidelity is a financial technology company providing solutions to financial institutions, businesses, and developers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ecitw at no extra charge.[CC] FIFTY WEST: Court Tosses Morse Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MORSE, v. FIFTY WEST BREWING COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00377-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas Cole entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The Court dismisses with prejudice the following Plaintiffs' FLSA collective-action claims: Douglas Brandt, Marion Caine, Kayla Daniels-Houseman, Katherine Ferris, Evelyn Hicks, Andrew Huffmann, Trinity Lana, Anna Mayevery, Unique Overly, Courtney Reeder, Frances Rosenkrantz, Emily Turner, Wyatt Michael Wachs, and Jack Wyche. The dismissal does not impact their ability to participate as absent class members if the Court certifies a class. Each of the four Knoll factors weighs in favor of dismissing the fourteen unresponsive Plaintiffs. These Plaintiffs have shirked discovery responsibilities, stymied Defendants, and ignored Court warnings. Additionally, no alternative sanction would cure their lack of engagement. The dismissal without prejudice extends only to the former claims and does not preclude them from participating in any recovery as absent class members, should the Court ultimately certify a class and the representative Plaintiffs prevail. On June 4, 2021, Morse initiated this action. He alleges that, in the course of operating their restaurant locations, the Defendants mishandled employees' tips at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, in violation of the FLSA, Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, and other state laws. Morse brought suit as both a collective action and putative class action on behalf of himself and other Fifty West employees similarly injured through these allegedly wrongful compensation policies. Fifty offers house-made craft beer and soda, floats, shakes, and shareables. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRFBrV at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST AMERICAN: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO v. FIRST AMERICAN LENDERS GROUP, INC. and MOSHI MOSHI CORAL WAY LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-22263 (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals seeking for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at a subject commercial property and commercial restaurant owned by the Defendant The barriers to access at the Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA, asserts the suit. The Defendant owned and continues to own and operate a commercial property at 1744-46 SW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, Florida 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com FLORIDA: Raghubir Appeals Court Order in Class Suit to 11th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- VINODH RAGHUBIR is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Vinodh Raghubir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00714-PGB-DCI, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs challenge the Florida Department of Corrections' use of solitary confinement. The appellate case is captioned Vinodh Raghubir v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 25-11659, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on May 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VINODH RAGHUBIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. FLOWERS BAKERIES: Dezeurn Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Demond Dezeurn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF SOCAL, LLC; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC; FLOWERS BAKERIES BRANDS, LLC; FLOWERS BAKERIES BRANDS, INC.; FLOWERS BAKERIES SALES OF NORCAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2505225 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04398. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jared L. Palmer, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com - and - Frank L. Tobin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: frank.tobin@ogletree.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Geletka ERISA Class Suit Over Retirement Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE OF PETER GELETKA - NICOLE GELETKA, EXECUTRIX, and ESTATE OF DAVID GELETKA - THERESA GELETKA, EXECUTRIX v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, JOHN DOE, Fiduciary of FORD MOTOR COMPANY TAX EFFICIENT SAVINGS PLAN for JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOURLY EMPLOYEES (TESPHE), Case No. 2:25-cv-11464-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 16, 2025) is a class action suit brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Plan and all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries arising in part under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are qualified participants in the Defendant Pension Plan as the Executrix of the Estate of Peter Geletka, the Defendant Pension Plan contributor and as the Executrix of the Estate of David Geletka, the named beneficiary of the Defendant Plan contributor. Ford Motor Company TESPHE Plan is a qualified employees' pension or retirement plan under Section 401 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and an employee pension plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. sections 1002(2)(A) and 1002 (35) as provided in ERISA, and was effective on December 31, 2021. Peter Geletka was hired by the Ford Motor Company on July 29, 1968, as a United Auto Worker (UAW) welder at the Cleveland Engine Plant Number One at Brookpark, Ohio. During this time, Peter Geletka contributed to a qualified trust of Ford Motor Company that was identified as the Tax Efficient Savings Plan for Hourly Employees. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand, and luxury cars under its Lincoln brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mardis R. Chaplin. Esq. 1999 Killian Road Akron, Ohio 44312 Telephone: (330) 644-4508 FRESHWORKS INC: Sundaram Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAN R. SUNDARAM is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying as moot his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Mohan R. Sundaram, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freshworks, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06750-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a federal class action brought by Plaintiff Sundaram under the Securities Act of 1933 against (i) Freshworks, (ii) certain of the Company's senior executives and directors who signed the Registration Statement, effective September 21, 2021, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering, and the underwriters of the Offering. Mr. Sundaram alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus (filed with the SEC on August 27, 2021 and September 22, 2021, respectively), including all amendments thereto, contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required by law to be disclosed. The Defendants are each strictly liable for such misstatements and omissions therefrom (subject only to their ability to establish a "due diligence" affirmative defense). On Jan. 16, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Apr. 10, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court finds that the Defendants have established that no recoverable losses (that is, no losses below the $36 per share threshold) were caused by their alleged omissions. And the Plaintiffs have not identified any genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged omissions actually caused any recoverable loss. Summary judgment is therefore proper. The appellate case is captioned Sundaram, et al. v. Freshworks, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3127, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 20, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 23, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 31, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 2, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MOHAN R. SUNDARAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas Livezey Laughlin IV, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. William Fredericks, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendants-Appellees FRESHWORKS, INC., et al. are represented by: Shannon Eagan, Esq. Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 - and - Linh Khanh Nguyen, Esq. Claire A. Olin, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 - and - Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 - and - Alexander Talarides, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Jennifer Keighley, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 GAP INC: Files Cross Appeal in Diaz Securities Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE GAP, INC., et al. are filing a cross appeal from a court order granting their motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Joshua Diaz, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Gap, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-7371, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regards to their false and/or misleading statements. On May 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Mar. 1, 2024. On Mar. 31, 2025, Judge Diane Gujarati granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case. On Apr. 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Mar. 31 Order. The appellate case is entitled Diaz v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 25-1254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MICHAEL SMITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan Stern, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellants THE GAP, INC., et al. are represented by: Israel Dahan, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Engine Failure -------------------------------------------------------------- Mitch Talley, writing for Corvette Blogger, reports that rumors have been going around that a Gen 6 small block V8 may be on the way for the C8 Corvette. Let's hope such a replacement, if it does happen, is more reliable than the 6.2-liter L87 engines that have been recalled in certain 2021-2024 General Motors trucks and SUVs – and the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed May 19, Monday, by a Seattle law firm. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the Hagens Berman firm on behalf of specific plaintiffs from Washington and California, accuses GM of knowingly selling and leasing vehicles with defective and unsafe engines. For 2025 vehicles, GM says it has corrected the manufacturing process blamed in the lawsuit for causing rod-bearing damage created by sediment on the connecting rods and in the crankshaft oil galleries in certain 2021-2024 vehicles, leading to a loss of propulsion that could become a safety hazard and sometimes requires the installation of a new engine. The suit also alleges that the defect lowers the value of these vehicles, causing financial harm to the plaintiffs. "Simply replacing the defective engine with the same type of engine does not address the Bearing Defect and leaves consumers subject to the same undisclosed safety risk," the suit claims. After a detailed analysis of field data and teardown inspections, GM believes the defects are limited to a build period between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2024, and that new manufacturing processes have eliminated the problem for 2025 vehicles. Following a series of investigations, engine replacements, and other lawsuits regarding consistent problems In response to the issue, GM has issued safety recall N252494001, which instructs dealers to inspect the vehicles with those that pass inspection to be provided a higher viscosity oil, which will also require a new oil fill cap, an oil filter replacement, and an owner's manual insert. The 2021-2024 Chevy Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, Chevy Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Yukon/Yukon XL, and Cadillac Escalade/Escalade ESV are listed in the suit. Affected owners will be notified by GM with further instructions. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Houchin Class Suit Over L87 Engine Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOUCHIN, RICH PAYZANT, ROBERT MARINO, TROY AUER, PETER SYDOW, DUSTIN KERN, GARVIN EASTMAN, DANNY TOLIVER, TIMOTHY STOLZ and JOSEPH MBANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-11462-RJW-APP E.D. Mich., May 16, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs seeking damages and equitable relief individually and on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom purchased or leased one or more vehicles equipped with a GM 6.2 Liter V8 EcoTec3 L87 engine. Accordingly, GM equipped several vehicles with the L87 Engine, including: a) 2021 - 2024 Cadillac Escalade b) 2021 - 2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV c) 2019 - 2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 d) 2021 - 2024 Chevrolet Tahoe e) 2021 - 2024 Chevrolet Suburban f) 2019 - 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 g) 2021 - 2024 GMC Yukon h) 2021 - 2024 GMC Yukon XL The L87 Engine is part of GM's Generation V small block engine family, otherwise known as "EcoTec3." The L87 is in the second generation of the EcoTec3 family of engines. GM first introduced the L87 Engine in 2018, among the engine options in its all-new 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (fourth generation) and 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 (fourth generation). The Class Vehicles were engineered to fail. GM failed to disclose the truth about these vehicles and failed to remedy the well-established defect in the Class Vehicles that were on the road. The Class Vehicles share a common, uniform, defect. They are equipped with the defective L87 Engine, which is highly susceptible to engine damage and sudden engine failure, resulting in loss of motive power and propulsion, during vehicle operation. The defect arises from improper crankshaft dimensions and surface finish, along with bearings that are insufficiently robust to withstand the heat and friction generated in the L87 Engines (the L87 Engine Defect). The Engine Defect can cause catastrophic internal engine failure, leading to sudden loss of propulsion and increased risk of collision, injury, or death, says the suit. Mr. Houchin owns a 2022 Cadillac Escalade equipped with the 6.2L L87 Engine. Mr. Houchin purchased his Escalade new from Corwin Buick GMC in Reno, Nevada in 2022. General Motors is a multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Madeline E. Hill, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhills@dicellolevitt.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III H. Clay Barnett, III J. Mitch Williams Dylan T, Martin Trenton H. Mann BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com Dylan.Martin@BeasleyAllen.com Trent.Mann@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. Adam M. Bucci, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com abucci@bholaw.com - and - Nicholas H. Wooten Esq. CHEELEY LAW GROUP, LLC 2500 Old Milton Parkway Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (770) 814-7001 E-mail: nick@cheeleylawgroup.com GIGSMART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- GIGSMART, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Susan Johnson, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GigSmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02003-AGT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code. On Mar. 26, 2025, Plaintiff Christi McCracken filed a motion to remand the case, which Judge Alex G. Tse granted on Apr. 29, 2025. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The appellate case is captioned Johnson, et al. v. GigSmart, Inc., Case No. 25-3042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SUSAN JOHNSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shaun Markley, Esq. Craig Nicholas, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Petitioner GIGSMART, INC. is represented by: Sam Hyde, Esq. Timothy J. Long, Esq. Ashley Boulton, Esq. Alexander Larsen Nowinski, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 GLOBAL MORTGAGE: Ragsdale Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Mortgage Group, LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Ragsdale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Global Mortgage Group, LLC doing business as: MoXi, Case No. 1:25-cv-01522-SKC (D. Colo., May 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Global Mortgage Group -- https://www.gmg.asia/ -- is the world's leading international mortgage specialist.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq. Alex Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO PLLC 7500 Rialto Boulevard, Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Phone: (737) 310-3210 Email: bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com akruzyk@pkglegal.com GLOBAL TETRAHEDRON: Discloses Personal Info, McRitchie Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL MCRITCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL TETRAHEDRON, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05471 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly disclosing the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the class members to Meta without their consent. According to the complaint, behind the scenes of its videos, Defendant installed computer code on its Website called the "Meta Pixel," which -- unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the members of the Class -- tracks and records Plaintiff’s and the Class members' private video consumption and discloses it to Meta without their consent. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiff's and the Class members' video consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant's newsletter via the Website. The Plaintiff became a subscriber to The Onion sometime in 2024, and on various occasions, has used the Website to watch Defendant's pre-recorded videos. The Plaintiff accesses the Website on the same browser he uses to access his Facebook account, which he created using his real name. Accordingly, like a "true" source of breaking news, Defendant provides users with pre-recorded "news coverage" videos via its Website. The Defendant has allegedly installed a "tracking pixel" on its Website, which hosts the videos for streaming. This tracking pixel surreptitiously sends consumers' viewing activities to third-party providers like Meta Platforms, Inc. without consent, in violation of the VPPA. The Defendant owns and operates its website theonion.com, a satirical news website featuring articles and videos of satirical news events. Consumers access the site through their browsers at theonion.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Fraietta, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com GOODRX INC: Valley Health Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valley Health Care LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Express Scripts Holding Company, Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., Navitus Health Solutions LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00456 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on May 15, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03024-MSM-AEM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. GoodRx -- https://www.goodrx.com/ -- is the first and only prescription drug price comparison tool created for consumers with prices from pharmacies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq. James M Terrell, Esq. R. G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: cgipson@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com - and - Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq. BEDFORD ROGERS & BOWLING PC 303 North Jackson Avenue P O Box 669 Russellville, AL 35653 Phone: (256) 332-2880 Fax: (256) 332-7821 Email: jeffbrbpc@bellsouth.net GORSUCH LTD: Pilkington Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN PILKINGTON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Kristin Pilkington, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gorsuch, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-CV-00434-RJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against Gorsuch for its intentional, systematic, and unlawful conduct in violation of Utah's Notice of Intent to Sell Nonpublic Personal Information Act. On Oct. 7, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to transfer, which Judge Robert J. Shelby granted on May 5, 2025. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate case is captioned Pilkington v. Gorsuch, Ltd., Case No. 25-4056, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTIN PILKINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LAW FIRM 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 - and - Tyler Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street Northwest, Suite 04-108 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3332 Defendant-Appellee GORSUCH, LTD. is represented by: Brian E. Middlebrook, Esq. Alexandra L. Sandler, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP One Battery Park 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (602) 295-6376 - and - Mark A. Nickel, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 15 West South Temple Street, Suite 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 204-9989 HALLCON CORPORATION: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Danate Barnes, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. HALLCON CORPORATION, Case No. 2025CH04201 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05447. The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), as to Plaintiff and a putative class of similarly situated individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Email: james@simonsayspay.com The Defendants are represented by: Orly Henry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Iles, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: ohenry@littler.com jiles@littler.com HANOVER VENTURES: Mesa Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ISAC MESA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HANOVER VENTURES MARKETPLACE LLC (D/B/A LE DISTRICT), HPH HOSPITALITY (D/B/A LE DISTRICT), PETER POULAKAKOS and PAUL LAMAS, Case No. 1:25-cv-04144 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a barback. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to bartending, bringing merchandise from and to the basement, stocking and restocking newly arrived merchandise in the basement, bringing ice, alcohol and other beverages to the restaurant from the basement, unloading deliveries, taking out trash, washing and storing glasses, cutting lemons, limes and pickles, sweeping and mopping and cleaning the bar. Plaintiff Mesa worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the suit. Mesa was employed as a barback at the restaurant located at 225 Liberty Street, New York City. The Defendants own, operate, or control a French bar/bistro and marketplace, located at 225 Liberty Street, New York City where the Plaintiff was employed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Appeals Summary Judgment to 1st Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES THERRIEN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Charles Therrien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hearst Television, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Charles Therrien brought this case on his own behalf and other similarly situated individuals against Hearst Television, Inc. ("HTV") for allegedly unlawfully disclosing his personally identifiable information (PII) to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Richard G. Stearns granted on Apr. 25, 2025. The Court finds that even if Therrien's email address was PII, its disclosure to Braze falls within the ordinary course of business exception. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is allowed. The appellate case is captioned Therrien v. Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 25-1487, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHARLES THERRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 (646) 837-7408 - and - James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. 45 S. Main St. West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Defendant-Appellee HEARST TELEVISION, INC. is represented by: Andrea Butler, Esq. Jonathan Donnellan, Esq. Matthew R. Greenfield, Esq. Kristen Hauser, Esq. HEARST CORP. 300 W. 57th St., 40th Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 649-2484 (212) 841-7000 (212) 649-2009 HELLO BELLO: Faces Class Action Over Baby Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a California woman filed a class action lawsuit against Hello Bello Consumer Wellness LLC. Why: The plaintiff claims Hello Bello's baby shampoo is falsely advertised as hypoallergenic. Where: The Hello Bello class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. Hello Bello, a company co-founded by celebrities Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard, has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that its baby shampoo is falsely advertised as "hypoallergenic." Plaintiff Nitaya McGee filed the class action complaint against Hello Bello on Dec. 5 in California state court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. The lawsuit claims that the Hello Bello Premium Baby and Kids Shampoo & Body Wash contains ingredients that are known allergens, including Coco Glucoside, Lauryl Glucoside and Cocamidopropyl Betaine. These ingredients have been declared "Allergens of the Year" by the American Contact Dermatitis Society, the lawsuit states. Hello Bello baby shampoo class action alleges false advertising The lawsuit alleges that Hello Bello's labeling is misleading to consumers, especially since the products are marketed for babies and kids, who are more likely to experience allergic reactions. The plaintiff claims she purchased the shampoo multiple times, believing it to be hypoallergenic, and would not have done so had she known about the allergens. The lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled products in the United States. It accuses Hello Bello of violating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law and committing breach of express warranty. The plaintiff is seeking damages and restitution for all affected consumers as well as an injunction to prevent Hello Bello from continuing to market the products as hypoallergenic. In 2010, Johnson & Johnson and Wal-Mart Stores were hit with a class action lawsuit that accused them of selling shampoo and baby wash that allegedly contains methylene chloride, an ingredient banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in cosmetics because it is linked to cancer. The plaintiff is represented by Craig W. Straub and Kurt D. Kessler of Crosner Legal P.C. The Hello Bello class action lawsuit is McGee v. Hello Bello Consumer Wellness LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00467-FLA-DTB, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside. [GN] HOTELENGINE INC: Figueroa Suit Removed to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shane Figueroa, Jennifer Smith, and Hunter Thoren, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HOTELENGINE, INC. D/B/A ENGINE, Case No. 2025-CV-31376 was removed from the District Court for Denver County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01549. In the Original Complaint, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the potential class members, asserted five claims for relief under various Colorado wage laws: violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), for alleged failure to pay wages due; violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("Minimum Wage Act"), for alleged failure to pay minimum wages due; violation of the Denver Minimum Wage Ordinance ("DMWO"), for alleged failure to pay minimum wages due; violation of the COMPS Order for alleged failure to pay wages due; and Civil Theft for failure to pay minimum wages due.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq. LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK, LLC 1490 Lafayette Street, Suite 304 Denver, Colorado 80218 Phone: (303) 593-2595 Fax: (303) 502-9119 Email: maryjo@lowrey-parady.com - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (646) 509-2060 Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com - and - Adam Koshkin, Esq. Kaelyn Mahar, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California, 12th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (202) 929-0640 Fax: (202) 847-4410 Email: akoshkin@outtengolden.com kmahar@outtengolden.com The Defendants are represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 Email: mdawson@fisherphillips.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Maldonado et al. Sue For Defective Palisade Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------------- Camille Maldonado, Shlomo Vizel, Terrance Rubin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor America, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00983 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2025) seeks relief for Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated New York and Ohio consumers who purchased Defendant's 2023-2025 Hyundai Palisade vehicles. According to the complaint, the Anti-lock Braking System and/or Traction Control System in these said vehicles are defective, causing miscalculations of wheel speed when the brakes are applied on rough or uneven road surface, which leads to the rapid release and reapplication of the brakes and results in a longer stopping distance than reasonably expected. Moreover, Hyundai has failed to repair the ABS Defect in these vehicles within a reasonable time. As a result, many Class Vehicle owners have been forced to continue driving their cars with faulty brakes that suffer from the ABS Defect. Accordingly, Hyundai's sale of the defective vehicles and failure to repair within a reasonable amount of time constitute a breach of its express warranty, violates New York General Business Law Section 349 and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and gives rise to a claim for fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Fountain Valley, CA, Hyundai Motor America designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com IDAHOAN FOODS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tawnya Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IDAHOAN FOODS LLC, a Delaware company d/b/a WWW.IDAHOAN.COM, Case No. 25STCV09989 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04357. The complaint includes only one cause of action: a violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew A. Young, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 255-6100 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200 Email: matt.young@saul.com ILLUMINA INC: Fed. Securities Trial Date Still Not Set ------------------------------------------------------ Illumina 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 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has not yet scheduled a trial date for the consolidated federal securities class suit. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the Actions). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff (Lead Plaintiff Motions). On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs (the Lead Plaintiffs). On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleges that Illumina and GRAIL and certain of their current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL. On September 13, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. On November 12, 2024, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On December 20, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The defendants' final reply brief was filed on February 3, 2025. No hearing date has been set. Illumina is a genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic analysis.[BN] INTERNATIONAL BANK: Appeals Arbitration Order in Parrott ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Paul Parrott, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the International Bancshares Corporation Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Plaintiff, v. International Bank of Commerce, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-1263, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act arising from the Defendants' failure to invest International Bancshares Corporation Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust assets prudently and for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants. On Oct. 8, 2024, the Defendant filed an amended motion to compel arbitration, which Judge David A. Ezra denied on Apr. 16, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Parrott v. International Bank, Case No. 25-50367, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PAUL PARROTT, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the International Bancshares Corporation Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, is represented by: Steven J. Eiden, Esq. Carl Engstrom, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 293-6773 (612) 305-8349 - and - Octavio Salinas, II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF OCTAVIO SALINAS 1116 Calle Del Norte Laredo, TX 78041 Telephone: (956) 727-4942 - and - Marc Anthony Zito, Esq. JONES GRANGER P.O. Box 4340 Houston, TX 77210 Telephone: (713) 668-0230 Defendants-Appellants INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, et al. are represented by: Brooke Bohlen, Esq. Donna Kay McElroy, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT, P.L.L.C. 112 E. Pecan Street Weston Centre San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 554-5247 (210) 554-5272 - and - Christopher D. Kratovil, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT, P.L.L.C. 1717 Main Street Comerica Bank Tower Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 462-6458 - and - Jordan Brownlow Perry, Esq. CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, L.L.P. 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 855-3140 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Class Cert Conference Set for June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burgard v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case No. 7:24-cv-02885-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip M. Halpern entered an order granting motion to hold a pre-motion conference regarding Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification on June 9, 2025. International is a multinational corporation specializing in computer technology and information technology consulting. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BcxwFl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. GRUBIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1270 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 7 New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 653-0631 E-mail: ahartzband@grubinlaw.com JBS FOODS: Appeals Dismissal Bid Order in Taylor Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JBS FOODS USA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tim Taylor, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBS Foods USA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03031-ECS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. In this case, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have misled the public by selling foreign raised beef under a "Product of USA" label because the meat was processed in the United States. On Dec. 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Eric C. Schulte granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 15, 2025. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to amend or correct the Jan. 15 Order, which Judge Schulte granted on Apr. 23, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Tim Taylor, et al. v. JBS Foods USA, et al., Case No. 25-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents TIM TAYLOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aubrey B. Dunn, Esq. Jared Robert Vander Dussen, Esq. WARBA, LLP 400 Gold Avenue S.W., Suite 1000 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 750-3060 - and - Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (972) 564-8340 - and - Marshall Jason Ray, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL J. RAY, LLC 514 Mable Avenue N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 312-7598 Defendants-Petitioners JBS Foods USA, et al. are represented by: Martin J. Demoret, Esq. Jesse Linebaugh, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 - and - Ambria Mahomes, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1000 - and - Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. Tyler Adam Young, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 JBS FOODS: Appeals Taylor Suit Dismissal Ruling to 8th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JBS FOODS USA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tim Taylor, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBS Foods USA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03031-ECS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. In this case, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have misled the public by selling foreign raised beef under a "Product of USA" label because the meat was processed in the United States. On Dec. 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Eric C. Schulte granted in part and denied in part on Jan. 15, 2025. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to amend or correct the Jan. 15 Order, which Judge Schulte granted on Apr. 23, 2025. The Court certifies its preemption determination for immediate appeal and staying the proceedings pending appeal. The appellate case is entitled Tim Taylor, et al. v. JBS Foods USA, et al., Case No. 25-1986, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 19, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TIM TAYLOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aubrey B. Dunn, Esq. Jared Robert Vander Dussen, Esq. WARBA, LLP 400 Gold Avenue S.W., Suite 1000 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 750-3060 - and - Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (972) 564-8340 - and - Marshall Jason Ray, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL J. RAY, LLC 514 Mable Avenue N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 312-7598 Defendants-Appellants JBS Foods USA, et al. are represented by: Martin J. Demoret, Esq. Jesse Linebaugh, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 248-9000 - and - Ambria Mahomes, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 320 S. Canal Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 569-1000 - and - Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. Tyler Adam Young, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 JEROME HARRIS: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in Carmichael --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (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=bJTz89 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 JEROME HARRIS: Symetra Seeks Class Briefing Sched in ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cedric Alexander, Alexander v. Jerome Harris, et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (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=4wzA8b 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 JOHN CARNEY: Gibbs Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DION D. GIBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN CARNEY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01301-SB (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Bibas entered an order granting the unopposed motion for class certification. The Court says that the proposed class meets the prerequisites for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2). The Judge also appointed Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. Accordingly, Dion Gibbs is confined at Sussex Correctional Institution, a Delaware prison. When COVID-19 swept the country in spring 2020, it swept this prison as well. Gibbs claims that, despite the spread, prison officials ignored or rejected prisoners' requests for masks, cleaning supplies, and better disinfecting procedures. He alleges that the prison even punished a prisoner who tried to take matters into his own hands by fashioning his own mask. And as the prison's staff came down with COVID, Gibbs claims that sick calls backed up; some prisoners waited six weeks for treatment and were still charged $4 for each sick call. John Carney is an Irish film director, producer, screenwriter and lyricist. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3DsPvX at no extra charge.[CC] KAISER FOUNDATION: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Health Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Guevara, Nicole Reynolds, Linda Rodriguez, Oscar Ocaranza, Yara Garcia and Cindy Barkho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, AND THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 25CV121881 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 6, 2025), is brought against the Defendants that have disclosed sensitive patient medical, health and other information to third party marketing and technology companies, in violation of data and health privacy laws. Without users' knowledge or authorization, Kaiser embedded code from Third Party Wiretappers on its websites2 ("Site"), secure patient portal ("Portal") and applications3 ("App" collectively "Kaiser Platform" or "Platform") which allowed the Third Party Wiretappers to intercept the content of users' interactions with Kaiser's Platform, including patient status, identifying information, medical topics researched, and communications with healthcare providers, all of which is protected health information ("PHI"). Users PHI was then used by the Third Party Wiretappers to feed their expanding databases of personal information and for targeted marketing and advertising. Kaiser disclosed users' PHI through embedded tracking technologies, including software development kits ("SDKs"), cookies, web beacons and other tracking scripts provided by the Third Party Wiretappers, that it incorporated into the Kaiser Platform. By disregarding users' right to privacy, Kaiser has subjected them to various harms. Kaiser's disclosure of users' data to Third Party Wiretappers increases the risk of further exposure and data breaches, leading to financial and legal repercussions, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Kaiser Foundation Health Plan members and has received medical treatment through Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and/or the Permanente Medical Group. Kaiser is an integrated healthcare system that combines health insurance and medical care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Waisnor, Esq. Morris Dweck, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: jwaisnor@labaton.com mdweck@labaton.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP 6633 Bay Laurel Place Avila Beach, CA 93424 Phone: (805) 543-0990 Facsimile: (805) 543-0980 Email: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com KAWASAKI MOTORS: Conway Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRET CONWAY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Bret Conway, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-01452-FWS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from Kawasaki's misrepresentations of, and concealment, suppression, and failure to disclose the serious flaws in the 2024 Mules' engines. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. On Sept. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 23, 2024. On Mar. 10, 2025, Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Apr. 1, 2025, judgment was entered in the case in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs, with Plaintiffs taking nothing on their claims. The appellate case is entitled Conway, et al. v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, et al., Case No. 25-2725, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on June 10, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on July 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRET CONWAY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Laurence David King, Esq. Matthew George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Defendants-Appellees KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., USA, et al. are represented by: Colin Higgins, Esq. Randolph T. Moore, Esq. SNELL & WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 KIM KOVOL: Seeks to Supplement Class Cert Materials --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY B., et al., v. KIM KOVOL, et al., Case No. 3:22-CV-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to supplement the record on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification to include excerpts of the recent deposition testimony of Justin Lazenby. In sum, Mr. Lazenby's recent testimony is "directly relevant to the central issues in this matter" regarding whether the plaintiffs have shown that the general class and the ADA subclass should be certified. Additionally, although similar evidence is already in the record, Mr. Lazenby's testimony is not already part of the record before the Court, asserts the Defendants. On Dec. 30, 2024, the parties completed briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a "general class" of: "All children for whom OCS has or will have legal responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and physical custody of OCS" and an "ADA subclass" of "[c]hildren who are or will be in foster care and experience physical, cognitive, and psychiatric disabilities." On March 31, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to substitute Mr. Lazenby as the next friend for named plaintiff Lana H. Kim Kovol serves as commissioner for the Alaska Department of Family and Community Services A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nDwEn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Margaret Paton Walsh, Esq. Christopher A. Robison, Esq. Katherine Demarest, Esq. Jennifer Teitell, Esq. Maxwell Jenkins-Goetz, Esq. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Ste. 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-5275 Facsimile: (907) 276-3697 E-mail: margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov KRISPY KREME: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Krispy Kreme, Inc. (NASDAQ: DNUT) securities between February 25, 2025 and May 7, 2025. Krispy Kreme produced doughnuts. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Krispy Kreme, Inc. (DNUT) Misled Investors Regarding its McDonald's Partnership According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) demand for Krispy Kreme products declined materially at McDonald's locations after the initial marketing launch; (2) demand at McDonald's locations was a driver of declining average sales per door per week; (3) the partnership with McDonald's was not profitable; (4) the foregoing posed a substantial risk to maintaining the partnership with McDonald's; and (5) as a result, the Company would pause expansion into new McDonald's locations. The complaint alleges that on May 8, 2025, Krispy Kreme released its first quarter 2025 financial results, reporting its "[n]et revenue was $375.2 million . . . a decline of 15.3%" and a "[n]et [l]oss [of] $33.4 million, compared to prior year net loss of $6.7 million." Additionally, Krispy Kreme announced that it is "reassessing [its] deployment schedule together with McDonald's" and "withdrawing its prior full year outlook and not updating it" due in part to "uncertainty around the McDonald's deployment schedule," the complaint alleges. On this news, the price of Krispy Kreme shares fell by nearly 25%, harming investors. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Krispy Kreme, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class are required to file their papers with the court by July 15, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Krispy Kreme, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] LEDUC, AB: Court Permits Disclosure of Sexual Misconduct Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Demers, writing for Hicks Morley, reports that the Court of King's Bench of Alberta has permitted disclosure of settlement details in a class action lawsuit against the City of Leduc, revealing a payment of over $9.5 million to 155 female employees who experienced workplace sexual misconduct. This case represents both one of the highest compensation per person for workplace sexual misconduct claims in Canadian history, and the first settlement of such a class action against a Canadian municipality or fire department. For employers, the judgment provides critical insights into the limits of confidentiality provisions in class action settlements and establishes important considerations for addressing workplace misconduct allegations. Background On February 24, 2022, two firefighters of the City of Leduc (City), Alberta, filed a Statement of Claim bringing a class action against the City for systemic negligence and breaches of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). The claim was amended on multiple occasions, including on May 9, 2022, to add employees of the City to the class as well as defamation and section 7 Charter claims. By April 2023, after various case management meetings, the parties were engaged in settlement discussions. In May 2023, the parties were close to reaching a settlement and requested a hearing date to certify the Claim on consent and to approve the settlement agreement. On June 20, 2023, the parties reached a signed settlement agreement. In the settlement, the City acknowledged that "some members of the Fire Department and employees of Leduc have suffered gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault in connection with their employment as firefighters." Certification and Approval of the Settlement Following the July 4, 2023 hearing, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta certified the proposed class pursuant to s. 5(1) of Alberta's Class Proceedings Act, SA 2003, c C-16.5 and approved the settlement reached between the parties. The certified class encompassed: All female current and former employees who worked for Leduc between 2002 and the date of certification who allege that they were subject to discrimination, sexual misconduct, or sexual assault at Leduc. The Court subsequently approved the settlement, which provided compensation for general damages arising from negligence, defamation, and the section 7 and 15 Charter claims. It established the following structured compensation framework: -- Between $10,000 to $285,000 for women who experienced discrimination, sexual misconduct, or sexual assault while working at the City, based on the level of harm claimed by the claimant (low, medium, or high harm); and -- $10,000 for qualifying defamation claimants. The City was also instructed to apologize for the conduct that occurred at a City council meeting and to implement policy changes and other restorative measures. Legal Proceedings Regarding Disclosure In its 2023 decision, the Court had retained jurisdiction over the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of the settlement. In March 2024, the plaintiffs applied to disclose the number of women who submitted claims and whose claims were approved. This application was dismissed due to the risk of inadvertently revealing the identity of claimants, due to the limited number of claimants at that point. However, the Court allowed the parties to revisit the issue if circumstances changed. The plaintiffs later applied for direction from the Court, seeking an order to permit disclosure of the number of approved claims and total compensation paid. The Court found that circumstances had changed since the March 2024 application, as the claim period had ended, and all claimants consented to the requested disclosure. The Court clarified that it had jurisdiction to hear the later application based on the need to interpret its previous order rejecting the March 2024 application, which lacked an end date for the prohibition on disclosure. The Court's Analysis The Court's decision to permit disclosure hinged on several key findings: -- While the Court rejected the plaintiffs' public policy argument, it determined that the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement did not prohibit disclosure of the requested aggregate information based on the ordinary meaning of the agreement's language. -- The settlement agreement's inclusion of an apology from the City and a joint statement regarding the settlement contradicted the City's argument for limiting public disclosure. -- The Court ruled that the information was not subject to settlement privilege or implied confidentiality that would prevent public disclosure. Consequently, the Court permitted the disclosure of both the total number of women whose claims were approved and the total compensation paid. News outlets subsequently reported that the City paid over $9.5 million to 155 women, among the highest per person compensation for workplace sexual misconduct claims in Canada, and the first settlement of such a class action lawsuit against a Canadian municipality or fire department. Key Takeaways for Employers The decision highlights the importance of addressing allegations of sexual misconduct early, proactively, and sensitively. Early intervention is crucial for employers as it protects staff, while avoiding the substantial liabilities, costs, and heightened media scrutiny that often accompany class action proceedings. Employers should be aware of the potential consequences and act accordingly to mitigate risks. Additionally, employers must recognize the limitations of settlement confidentiality provisions in class action settlements. When settling class action claims, it is essential to draft the relevant confidentiality language narrowly to ensure that disclosure of sensitive settlement details remains prohibited. This careful drafting can help prevent reputational harm to employers that may result from the public disclosure of such information. [GN] LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH: Court Greenlights $8-Mil. Settlement in OT Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ United States Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement and Dismiss Claims With Prejudice in the case captioned as MEGAN JANETIS, Plaintiff, v. LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. RDB-23-2628 (D. Md.). The Court held that the Settlement Agreement reflects a fair and reasonable solution of a bona fide dispute between the parties. The Agreement provides for a maximum gross settlement amount of $8,000,000, which includes (1) settlement payments for distribution to Janetis and Qualified Claimants; (2) Janetis's service payment; (3) Settlement Administration Costs; and (4) a negotiated award of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees of 33% of the Gross Fund and costs of $10,716.33. The Agreement also includes a release provision by each Qualified Claimant and Janetis will execute a general release against LifeBridge in exchange for accepting and receiving an approved Service payment. Janetis brings this putative class and collective action on behalf of herself and all hourly, non-exempt employees of LifeBridge \who had a meal period automatically deducted from their wages at any time on or after September 17, 2020. Janetis seeks recovery of overtime wages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and liquidated damages based on her allegation that LifeBridge subjected her and other employees to automatic lunch deduction without providing bona fide meal breaks. The primary basis for Plaintiff's allegations is that she and Putative Collective Members worked during meal breaks such that they are owed compensation, including compensation for meal breaks shorter than thirty minutes. Plaintiff vigorously disputes LifeBridge's position that no FLSA violation occurred, arguing that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that employees worked during meal breaks without compensation. Janetis has not moved for -- and the Court has not granted -- certification of a collective or class, but two individuals, Carolyn Hurlbut and Tanisha Robinson, have filed consents to join this lawsuit. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of a putative collective of approximately 14,219 non-exempt employees of listed LifeBridge entities between September 27, 2020, and May 21, 2024. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ('FLSA'), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.; Maryland Wage and Hour Law ('MWHL'), MD. CODE ANN., LABOR & EMPL. Section 3-401, et seq.; and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ('MWPCL'), MD. CODE ANN., LABOR & EMPL. Section 3-501, et seq. Plaintiff seeks overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest for these alleged violations. Defendant denied Plaintiff's allegations, denied liability, and raised various affirmative defenses. On December 8, 2023, the parties agreed to stay the case for early mediation and informally exchanged documents for settlement discussions. \On April 18, 2024, and May 8, 2024, the parties attended mediation sessions with experienced wage and hour mediator Dennis Clifford. On February 20, 2025, the parties again met with Mr. Clifford for a settlement discussion in which they reached a settlement in principle. The parties executed a formal Settlement Agreement setting the terms of settlement. In reviewing the sufficiency of a settlement agreement under the FLSA, courts should approve settlements that reflect a "reasonable compromise of disputed issues" rather than a "mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching." The Court pointed to Saman v. LBDP, Inc., No. DKC-12-1083, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83414, at *2 (D. Md. June 13, 2013) (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff has asked this Court to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement and dismiss the case with prejudice. To determine whether a bona fide dispute exists as to a defendant's liability under the FLSA, courts examine the pleadings in the case along with the representations and recitals in the proposed settlement agreement. Plaintiff identifies five bona fide disputes in the Unopposed Motion. First, the parties dispute whether LifeBridge has any liability for the interrupted meal break claim asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint. To establish a violation of FLSA based on interrupted meal breaks despite an automatic mealtime deduction, a Plaintiff must show that '(1) she performed compensable work during meal breaks for which she was not paid; and (2) [Defendant] had "actual or constructive knowledge" that she worked during meal breaks without compensation.' Marshall v. Novant Health, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170784, at *18 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2020) (citing Roy v. Cty. of Lexington, 141 F.3d 533, 545 (4th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff vigorously disputes both positions, arguing that she and Putative Collective Members worked during meal breaks such that they are owed compensation, including compensation for meal breaks shorter than 30 minutes. LifeBridge contends that no FLSA violation occurred because employees reported while clocking out of each shift whether they had taken their full lunch break, and the system would cancel the automatic deduction if an employee indicated she had not taken her full break. Defendant also argues that under the Fourth Circuit's "predominant benefit test," no liability would apply to meal breaks of fewer than thirty minutes. The parties also dispute the likelihood of recovering liquidated damages and the applicable limitations period. To determine whether a settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, courts consider six factors, including the extent of discovery, stage of proceedings, absence of fraud or collusion, experience of counsel, opinions of counsel, and probability of success on the merits. The parties engaged in extensive informal discovery, including exchanging and reviewing thousands of pay and time records for the proposed class. Settlement avoids protracted litigation -- including more formal discovery -- and its associated risks and expenses. There is no evidence to suggest fraud or collusion occurred in this case, and the parties reached the Settlement Agreement after two mediations and several months of arms-length negotiations. Plaintiffs' counsel, Josephson Dunlap, has significant experience in plaintiff-side wage and hour cases across the nation and has litigated numerous off-the-clock, meal break cases like the instant action. The Net Fund will be approximately $5,300,000, about 92% of the total potential treble damages of $5,746,000. An FLSA settlement must also contain reasonable provisions regarding attorneys' fees. The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs' Counsel will receive 33% of the Gross Fund as attorneys' fees, plus reimbursement of $10,716.33, which represents reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred in litigating and resolving this matter. This fee request is reasonable and commensurate with the skill and experience of the participating attorneys and the legal support they have provided. The results obtained for the class favor approval because the Settlement will provide immediate relief for Putative Collective Members in the form of direct monetary payments. The complexity of this action, pending for over a year and involving unique statutes of limitations, damages, and exemptions under FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL, also favors approval of the fee award. Public policy favors the award of the requested attorneys' fees, as settlement will vindicate the rights of over 14,000 employees. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ho7O20 from PacerMonitor.com. MACC TRANSPORT: Edmonds Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN EDMONDS, individually and for others similarly situated v. MACC TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-02270 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Macc Transport under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Macc Transport under the minimum wage laws of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico (State Minimum Wage Laws). According to the complaint, Macc Transport failed to ensure that Edmonds's weekly wages equaled at least the applicable Edmonds's minimum hourly wage for all hours that Edmonds worked per workweek. Plaintiff Edmonds did not receive the applicable Edmonds minimum wage for all hours of work per seven-day workweek because the weekly mileage pay he received, when divided by the weekly hours considered worked under the FLSA, was less than the applicable minimum hourly wage rate, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages for the difference between the amount of pay he received and the applicable minimum wages he earned on a weekly basis during the period of his employment in addition to liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff is an individual and former employee of Macc Transports. He resides in the United States and was employed by the Defendant as an over-the-road truck driver. He worked for Macc Transports from March 2023 to February 2025. He further brings this action on behalf of himself and all the class of similarly situated employees or putative class members, properly defined as: "All Truck Drivers working for or on behalf of Macc Transport at any time during the last three (3) years."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal MADDY'S HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Maddy's Home Furniture & More, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02740 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Maddyshomeny.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services United World Soccer provides to their non-disabled customers through Pelesoccer.com. Maddyshomeny.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by United World Soccer. Yet, Pelesoccer.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, asserts the suit. Maddy's Home Furniture & More, LLC operates the website that sells home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MAPLEBEAR INC: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on May 9, 2025, Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a purported securities class action against a grocery delivery company (the "Company"), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters to the Company's IPO. Stephens v. Maplebear Inc. (d/b/a Instacart), et al., No. 5:24-cv-00465-EJD (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2025). Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of investors in the Company, alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's IPO regarding the strength of its brand and its financial forecasts in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation. According to the amended complaint, the Company was founded in 2012 as a grocery technology company that partners with various grocery stores to offer online shopping. Plaintiffs allege that after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company's revenues increased nearly eightfold and it reached a peak valuation of $39 billion in 2021, but that the Company's growth slowed once lockdowns were lifted. Plaintiffs alleged that in connection with the IPO, defendants made false and misleading statements about the strength of the Company's brand and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court held that plaintiffs "ha[d] not pled, as a factual matter, that the brand-related events [the Company] allegedly concealed or lied about actually happened, and they have not explained how the challenged forecasting statements relate to their theory of falsity." As to the brand-related statements, the Court noted that plaintiffs relied "almost exclusively on allegations from a single confidential witness" and found they did not "substantiate" plaintiffs' theory because they "describe[d] events pre-dating the challenged statements" by nine months. According to the Court, "[m]uch could have changed in those intervening months" and falsity must be "measured against the state of affairs when a statement is made, not the one nine months prior." As for the financial forecasting statements, the Court noted that plaintiffs "make a stronger case" but that these claims failed because those challenged statements were "largely not about forecasts at all," but rather, for example, "commonsensical truisms" about how "lower fees make ordering online more appealing" or were "better viewed as simply identifying the things that [the Company] needs to do, or the benchmarks it needs to hit, to be successful." The Court did identify one specific forecast about the Company's alleged expected growth rate, but held that the related statements occurred before the proposed class period and therefore were not actionable. The Court also found that certain other statements were not actionable because they were opinion statements, forward-looking statements accompanied by sufficient cautionary language, or mere puffery. The Court went on to consider scienter and loss causation. The Court held that plaintiffs could not rely on the confidential witness allegations to establish a strong inference of scienter, as they pre-dated the alleged misstatements by at least nine months. The Court noted that plaintiffs otherwise pointed only to generalized allegations about motive and access to information and that "[n]either does the trick" because the alleged stock sales were to satisfy tax obligations, and the amended complaint did not identify to what forms of information defendants allegedly had access. The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead loss causation in support of their Exchange Act claims because they failed to plead any relevant link between the Company's alleged fraud and their alleged losses. However, the Court stated "this does not automatically mean that [the Company] has established negative causation for Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims" because "[n]egative causation is an affirmative defense for which [the Company] bears a 'heavy burden'" and that "[a]ll that it takes to overcome [it] is to show that the alleged fraud 'touches upon the reasons for an investment's decline in value'" (quoting Hildes v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 734 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2013)). Finally, the Court held that because plaintiffs failed to plead any primary violation of the Exchange Act or Securities Act, plaintiffs' control person claims must also be dismissed. The Court dismissed all claims but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. [GN] MARYLAND: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Connor Suit to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss and granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Irene Connor, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Maryland Department of Health, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01423-MJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On May 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) and MDH's Secretary Laura Herrera Scott, in her official capacity. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act for alleged failures to conduct statutorily mandated annual surveys and investigate complaints within statutorily prescribed time frames. On July 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On July 22, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. On Apr. 22, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that the injunction the Plaintiffs request here is specific and tailored specifically to the discriminatory and unlawful conduct alleged in this case. The Court finds that all Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) conditions for class certification are met in this case. The appellate case is captioned Maryland Department of Health v. Irene Connor, Case No. 25-147, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents IRENE CONNOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Regan Bailey, Esq. Liam Joseph McGivern, Esq. Carol A. Wong, Esq. JUSTICE IN AGING 1444 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 683-1990 (202) 683-1995 - and - Sheila Boston, Esq. Robert Grass, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 (212) 836-8064 - and - Debra Lynn Gardner, Esq. Sam L. Williamson, Esq. Ashley J. Woolard, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER 201 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 625-9409 (410) 400-6956 - and - Samuel Lonergan, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1144 15th Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Defendants-Petitioners MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al. are represented by: Anthony G. Brown, Esq. David Efrem Wagner, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 624-8190 - and - Bambi Glenn, Esq. Nicole Marie Lugo Clark, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 300 West Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-6994 (410) 767-5292 MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS R. NARRIGAN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Thomas R. Narrigan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deborah Goldberg, in her official capacity as Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-10107-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff brings this complaint to present a constitutional challenge to the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, enacted by the Massachusetts General Court in 1950. The Plaintiff alleges certain provisions of the Act, those controlling the payment of interest when property is returned, constitute a taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation. This taking violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, suit says. On Apr. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Mark G. Mastroianni granted on Mar. 25, 2025. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a plausible Takings Clause claim. The appellate case is captioned Narrigan v. Goldberg, Case No. 25-1395, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS R. NARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW PC 176 Federal St., 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 - and – Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM 120 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 444-9656 - and – Arthur Susman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN 1540 N. Lake Shore Dr. Chicago, IL 60610 Defendant-Appellee DEBORAH GOLDBERG, in her official capacity as Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is represented by: Jennifer Ellen Greaney, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl., 20th Fl. Boston, MA 02108 MASTERCARD INC: UK Tribunal Finalizes Settlement in Swipe Fees Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that the U.K.'s Competition Appeal Tribunal announced its judgment May 20 in a long-running class action lawsuit that was brought against Mastercard over its swipe fees. The judgment determines the distribution of the settlement of 200 million pounds that was announced in February, the Competition Appeal Tribunal said in a summary of the judgment. It approves the settlement sought by the class representative, Walter Merricks, and Mastercard, according to the summary. The funder of Merricks' lawsuit, Innsworth Capital, had objected to the settlement, saying the settlement figure was too low, and had begun arbitration against him, the summary said. As part of the settlement, Mastercard agreed to give Merricks indemnity of 10 million pounds, per the summary. "The Tribunal held that it was entirely satisfied that the terms of the settlement were just and reasonable such that the settlement should be approved [. . . ]," the summary said. "The likelihood of judgment being obtained for an amount significantly in excess of £200 million was low. Further, the personal indemnity to Mr. Merricks, in the unusual circumstances of this case, did not impugn the Tribunal's view of the settlement." With this final approval of the settlement, millions of U.K. consumers are set to receive up to 70 pounds each, the Independent reported. "The settlement that has been finally approved represents a fair and just outcome for U.K. consumers," Merricks told the Independent. "On any view, recovering £200 million by way of a settlement for U.K. consumers is a huge sum, and that will translate into a meaningful impact in the pockets of U.K. consumers." Merricks, a former financial ombudsman, filed the lawsuit in 2016, alleging that Mastercard charged exorbitant interchange fees -- which retailers pay credit card companies when consumers shop with that card -- and that those fees were passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. Mastercard countered that consumers derived valuable benefits from its payment technology. Merricks and Mastercard announced an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on Dec. 3. The Competition Appeal Tribunal approved the settlement in February, adding that the approval was subject to finalization of the details and that a formal order would follow. [GN] MEMBERS HERITAGE: Trent Brings Appeal to Kentucky Appeals Court --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA JOHNSON TRENT has filed an appeal on April 25, 2025, in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The appellate case is captioned Sandra Johnson Trent, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. Members Heritage Credit Union, Inc., Case No. 2025-CA -0517. The case type is stated as Civil.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SANDRA JOHNSON TRENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew Evan Mize, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Nashville, TN 37203 Defendant-Appellee MEMBERS HERITAGE CREDIT UNION, INC. is represented by: Denise Michelle Motta, Esq. Corey Jacob Taylor, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP Louisville, KY 40202 MERCK & CO: Chatom Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------------- CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, PC, et al. filed on May 5, 2025, a request to extend time to file for a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-1070, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case captioned Chatom Primary Care, P.C., et al., Applicants vs. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 23-3089. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHATOM PRIMARY CARE, PC, et al. are represented by: Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K. Street NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Email: deepak@guptawessler.com MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Hamza Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANAS HAMZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED d/b/a STRATEGY, MICHAEL J. SAYLOR, PHONG LE, and ANDREW KANG, Case No. 1:25-cv-00861 (E.D. Va., May 16, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Strategy securities between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials. Since 2020, the Company has increasingly focused on purchasing and holding bitcoin, a type of crypto-currency, as a long-term business strategy. In October 2023, this strategy became so central to the Company's operations that it began referring to itself as a "Bitcoin Treasury Company" that primarily uses proceeds from equity and debt financings, as well as cash flows from its operations, to accumulate bitcoin, which serves as its primary treasury reserve asset. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants consistently touted Strategy's bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations. The Company also introduced several new key performance indicators (KPIs)-- namely, "BTC Yield," "BTC Gain," and "BTC $ Gain" -- to measure its financial results. According to Defendants, these new KPIs would help the market assess the Company's strategy of acquiring bitcoin in a manner accretive to shareholders. On Jan. 1, 2025, Strategy adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08, Intangibles -- Goodwill and Other -- Crypto Assets (Subtopic 350-60): Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets (ASU 2023- 08). ASU 2023-08 requires publicly traded companies to measure their crypto assets at fair value, in their financial statements, with gains and losses from changes in the fair value of those assets recognized in net income in each reporting period. While Defendants advised investors throughout the Class Period that they expected Strategy's adoption of ASU 2023-08 to materially impact its financial statements, the Defendants failed to disclose the particular nature or scope of the expected impact while downplaying the attendant risks, asserts the suit. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Strategy's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the anticipated profitability of the Company's bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations was overstated. As a result, Strategy warned investors that "[w]e may not be able to regain profitability in future periods, particularly if we incur significant unrealized losses related to our digital assets." On this news, Strategy's Class A common stock price fell $25.47 per share, or 8.67%, to close at $268.14 per share on April 7, 2025, says the suit. Then, on May 1, 2025, Strategy issued a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2025. Therein, the Company confirmed that it had recorded an unrealized fair value loss on digital assets of approximately $5.9 billion during the quarter. On a subsequent earnings call to discuss these results, Company management explained that this loss stemmed from applying a fair value accounting methodology to Strategy's bitcoin assets following bitcoin's steep depreciation in value in the first quarter of 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit further asserts. Strategy, together with its subsidiaries, provides enterprise analytics software and services purportedly powered by artificial intelligence. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com MICROSTRATEGY INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Va. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MicroStrategy Incorporated d/b/a Strategy ("Strategy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MSTR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and docketed under 25-cv-00861, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Strategy securities between April 30, 2024 and April 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Strategy securities during the Class Period, you have until July 15, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Strategy, together with its subsidiaries, provides enterprise analytics software and services purportedly powered by artificial intelligence. Since 2020, the Company has increasingly focused on purchasing and holding bitcoin, a type of crypto-currency, as a long-term business strategy. In October 2023, this strategy became so central to the Company's operations that it began referring to itself as a "Bitcoin Treasury Company" that primarily uses proceeds from equity and debt financings, as well as cash flows from its operations, to accumulate bitcoin, which serves as its primary treasury reserve asset. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants consistently touted Strategy's bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations. The Company also introduced several new key performance indicators ("KPIs")—namely, "BTC Yield," "BTC Gain," and "BTC $ Gain"—to measure its financial results. According to Defendants, these new KPIs would help the market assess the Company's strategy of acquiring bitcoin in a manner accretive to shareholders. On January 1, 2025, Strategy adopted the Financial Accounting Standards Board's ("FASB") Accounting Standards Update No. 2023-08, Intangibles -- Goodwill and Other—Crypto Assets (Subtopic 350-60): Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets ("ASU 2023-08"). ASU 2023-08 requires publicly traded companies to measure their crypto assets at fair value in their financial statements, with gains and losses from changes in the fair value of those assets recognized in net income in each reporting period. The FASB issued ASU 2023-08 to improve the way that companies account for their crypto assets and, accordingly, require them to provide a more accurate assessment of the fair value of those assets. Prior to its adoption of ASU 2023-08, rather than employing a fair value accounting methodology, Strategy accounted for its bitcoin under a cost-less-impairment accounting model, whereby the Company classified its large bitcoin holdings as intangible assets. Under this accounting model, Strategy only needed to recognize impairments in the event of price depreciations and would not mark up for price increases unless the assets were sold. While Defendants advised investors throughout the Class Period that they expected Strategy's adoption of ASU 2023-08 to materially impact its financial statements, Defendants failed to disclose the particular nature or scope of the expected impact while downplaying the attendant risks. Indeed, Defendants consistently provided rosy assessments of Strategy's performance as a bitcoin treasury company following its adoption of ASU 2023-08. They did this, in part, by reporting and projecting positive BTC Yield, BTC Gain, and BTC $ Gain results, while omitting the immense losses the Company could realize on its bitcoin assets after accounting for these assets under a fair value accounting methodology. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Strategy's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the anticipated profitability of the Company's bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations was overstated; (ii) the various risks associated with bitcoin's volatility and the magnitude of losses Strategy could recognize on the value of its digital assets following its adoption of ASU 2023-08 were understated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 7, 2025, Strategy disclosed in a filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that, following its adoption of ASU 2023-08, it recognized a $5.91 billion unrealized loss on its digital assets for the first quarter of 2025, which was expected to result in a net loss for the quarter. As a result, Strategy warned investors that "[w]e may not be able to regain profitability in future periods, particularly if we incur significant unrealized losses related to our digital assets." On this news, Strategy's Class A common stock price fell $25.47 per share, or 8.67%, to close at $268.14 per share on April 7, 2025. Then, on May 1, 2025, Strategy issued a press release announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2025. Therein, the Company confirmed that it had recorded an unrealized fair value loss on digital assets of approximately $5.9 billion during the quarter. On a subsequent earnings call to discuss these results, Company management explained that this loss stemmed from applying a fair value accounting methodology to Strategy's bitcoin assets following bitcoin's steep depreciation in value in the first quarter of 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980sec [GN] MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Retirement Plan Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In Re: Mobileye Global Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-310, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with their alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the build-up of excess inventory by certain Tier 1 Mobileye customers. On Sept. 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 25, 2024. On Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Denise L. Cote granted on Apr. 16, 2025. The Court finds that the second amended complaint has failed to state a claim. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The case is closed. The appellate case is captioned In Re: Mobileye Global Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-1292, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John James Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Defendants-Appellees MOBILEYE GLOBAL INC., et al. are represented by: Dana M. Seshens, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Kharoufa Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEFAN KHAROUFA, et al. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Stefan Kharoufa, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The County of Nassau, et al., Defendants, Case No. 615417/2023, in the lower court of New York. The case type is stated as Civil Action - General. The appellate case is captioned Stefan Kharoufa, et al. v. The County of Nassau, et al., Case No. 25-05773, in the New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, filed on May 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners STEFAN KHAROUFA, et al. are represented by: Kevin Daniel Page, Esq. 16 Studio Hill Rd. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 Telephone: (914) 821-6400 NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Harvey Appeals Dismissal of Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN HARVEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Nathan Harvey, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Amusements, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10027-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class member's personally identifiable information from a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals and impacted over 82,000 current and former employees. On Mar. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on May 28, 2024. On Mar. 27, 2025, Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court held that both Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing for damages and injunctive relief because they have not demonstrated that their injuries are fairly traceable to the specific data breach at issue. The appellate case is entitled Harvey, et al. v. National Amusements, Inc., Case No. 25-1414, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NATHAN HARVEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. Cassandra Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 - and – Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW PC 350 Lincoln St., Ste. 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC. is represented by: Melissa Bilancini, Esq. James H. Rollinson, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Sq., Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 - and – Lindsey A. Gil, Esq. PEABODY & ARNOLD LLP 600 Atlantic Ave. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 951-2004 - and – Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market St., Ste. 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 564-8386 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chalmers Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO CHALMERS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Mario Chalmers, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-5008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on July 1, 2016. The putative class action is the latest in a series of lawsuits by collegiate student-athletes National Collegiate Athletic Association and its members and athletic conferences. These cases have involved claims for monetary and injunctive relief arising from the NCAA's use of the student-athletes' names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in advertisements and for other commercial purposes. On Oct. 18, 2024, the NCAA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). On Oct. 21, 2024, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint or opposition by November 8, 2024. On Nov. 14, 2024, after correcting a filing error, the Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint. On Dec. 2, 2024, the NCAA moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which the Plaintiffs opposed on Dec. 17, 2024. On Dec. 23, 2024, the NCAA replied. On Jan. 27, 2025, the Court heard argument. On Apr. 28, 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered an Order granting the NCAA's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The dismissal is with prejudice. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not pled facts that during the many years between agreeing to relinquish their NILs and filing this lawsuit, they were unaware, and that it was impossible for them reasonably to have learned, that they had a potential antitrust claim. The Court therefore denies the Plaintiffs' bid to rescue their claims on this basis. The appellate case is captioned Chalmers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 25-1307, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 21, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al. are represented by: Rakesh Kilaru, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 - and - Timothy E. Burroughs, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 - and - Whitty Somvichian, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Britt Marie Miller, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Natali Wyson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, TX 75201 NATURES BAKERY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fig Bars' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs William Martin and Alejandra Gamboa filed a class action lawsuit against Nature's Bakery LLC. Why: The plaintiffs claim Nature's Bakery misleads consumers into believing its fig bars are healthy. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Nature's Bakery misleads consumers into believing its fig bars are healthy despite the fact they contain excessive amounts of added sugar. Plaintiffs William Martin and Alejandra Gamboa filed the class action complaint against Nature's Bakery on Feb. 18 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Martin and Gamboa claim the company falsely advertises its fig bars as healthy despite the fact they contain between 11 and 16 grams of added sugar per serving, which, they argue, is excessive. "By way of context, 38 grams is the point at which sugar becomes a liver toxin and is the outer limit of the American Heart Association's recommendation for daily consumption of added sugars for a normal adult male," the Nature's Bakery fig bar class action states. The plaintiffs argue Nature's Bakery's fig bars contain nearly one-quarter of the volume of each 57-gram serving in the form of added sugars. Nature's Bakery fig bars give off healthy image that misleads parents, lawsuit claims Martin and Gamboa claim Nature's Bakery uses a marketing strategy designed to give consumers, especially parents of young children, the impression that its fig bars are healthy. The plaintiffs argue the company prominently displays claims and graphical elements on its fig bar packaging that suggest they are healthy, such as "Real Fruit & Whole Grains" and "No High Fructose Corn Syrup." "Even the name of the Defendant -- Nature's Bakery -- conveys the notion that the foods produced by Defendant are natural, healthy and free of dangerous additives, including excessive amounts of added sugar," the Nature's Bakery class action says. Martin and Gamboa claim Nature's Bakery is guilty of unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty and of violating California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The pair demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. In related news, Clif Bar recently agreed to a $12 million settlement to resolve allegations that its packaging included misleading claims, making its energy bars appear healthy despite their high added sugar content. The plaintiffs are represented by Charles C. Weller of Charles C. Weller APC. The Nature's Bakery fig bar class action lawsuit is Martin, et al. v. Natures Bakery LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01377, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] NELNET SERVICING: Appeals Injunction Order in Golden Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- NELNET SERVICING, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tashanna B. Golden, formerly known as Tashanna B. Pearson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-01005-ess, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 18, 2017, Ms. Golden commenced the adversary proceeding as a putative class action, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, by filing a complaint against JP Morgan Chase Bank, Firstmark Services, GoldenTree Asset, and National Collegiate Trust seeking a determination that certain debts that she incurred as a student are not nondischargeable student loan debts under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8)(B), and a finding of contempt against the Defendants for civil contempt for willful violations of the bankruptcy discharge injunction. On Oct. 17, 2017, Ms. Golden filed a First Amended Complaint to add class action allegations and additional Defendants. And on Nov. 2, 2017, Ms. Golden voluntarily dismissed Defendant GoldenTree Asset Management from the action. On May 7, 2025, Ms. Golden's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted. The Defendants are restrained and enjoined from taking any acts to collect on loans that exceed the cost of attendance as defined by Internal Revenue Code Sec. 221(D), irrespective of whether those loans were guaranteed by TERI, that are held by Ms. Golden and the Putative Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint, that have an outstanding balance subject to collection. The Defendants are also restrained and enjoined from taking any acts to collect on post-graduation loans incurred to pay for living expenses while pursuing professional licensure, that are held by Ms. Golden and the Putative Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint, that have an outstanding balance subject to collection. The appellate case is entitled Nelnet Servicing, LLC v. Golden, Case No. 25-02872, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on May 22, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Appellant NELNET SERVICING, LLC is represented by: Barbara L. Seniawski, Esq. 157 Columbus Ave., Fl. 4 New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (212) 595-4536 Email: barbara@seniawskilaw.com - and - Charles F. Kaplan, Esq. PERRY GUTHERY HAASE & GESSFORD PC 233 South 13th Street Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 476-9200 Email: ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com NEW YORK, NY: Immigrants Eligible to Civil Rights Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Swanson, writing for Bronx Times, reports that thousands of New Yorkers who were jailed by federal immigration authorities between 1997 and 2012 may be eligible to receive a portion of a $92.5 million class action settlement with the city. The settlement stems from claims that individuals were unlawfully held beyond their scheduled release dates. The deadline to file a claim was recently extended from May 15 to Aug. 15. According to Debbie Greenberger, attorney for the plaintiff class and a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, more than 20,000 people are eligible for compensation, including an estimated 4,000 who were living in the Bronx at the time of their detention. The settlement covers individuals who were held by the NYC Department of Correction past their release dates at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), between April 1, 1997, and Dec. 21, 2012. Prior to the city's adoption of sanctuary policies in 2014, New York routinely complied with ICE requests to detain individuals for up to 48 additional hours after their scheduled release. However, in many cases, the Department of Correction allegedly held people for significantly longer periods--sometimes weeks or even months--Greenberger told the Bronx Times. For those who qualify, settlement payments may be over $10,000, depending on how long each person was over-detained. The settlement stems from the 2010 lawsuit, Onadia v. City of New York, brought by plaintiff Oscar Onadia. He was an immigrant from Burkina Faso who served a five-day sentence at Rikers Island jail for unlicensed driving but was held an additional 41 days under an ICE detainer. Though the city denied any wrongdoing and mostly stopped cooperating with ICE detainer requests after sanctuary laws passed, Onadia was paid $25,000 under the settlement, and the city agreed to pay more than 20,000 others affected. Collectively, the lawsuit's class members were held more than 166,000 days beyond their scheduled release dates. Finding all the people who qualify has proven challenging, as many may have died, moved or been deported, said Greenberger. However, for those who believe they are entitled to the settlement -- or have a relative or friend who is -- the process of filing a claim is simple. Claimants have to complete a one-page form or call a toll-free number, and the settlement administrator has a list of everyone who qualifies, so it's just a matter of matching people to the list, Greenberger said. Amid a climate of increased anxiety for immigrants, the attorney said the settlement offers “an avenue of hope and good news.” It serves as a reminder that immigrants do have constitutional rights and that cities can suffer “real financial exposure” for violating them, Greenberger said. Anyone who believes they're entitled to the settlement -- even if uncertain about the detention dates or other details -- is encouraged to file a claim at www.nycicesettlement.com or call 1-800-479-0810 before Aug. 15. [GN] NICK & ERNIE'S: Jasso Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, IMWL -------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY JASSO and MIGUEL MALDONADO on behalf of themselves and all other laborers similarly situated, known and unknown v. NICK & ERNIE'S, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05489 (N.D. Ill., May 16, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for: -- Defendant's failure to pay its employees at time and a half their mandated regular pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week; and -- Defendant's practice of violating the agreement between it and its employees to pay an agreed upon hourly rate of all time worked. Plaintiff Jasso was employed by Defendant as a mechanic from April 2022 through late April 2025 while Plaintiff Maldonado has been employed by Defendant as a mechanic since August 2022 through the present. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have used a digital timekeeping system to clock-in and clock-out during their work day at Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant has had a practice of editing Plaintiffs' and similarly situated clock-in and clock-out time to reflect fewer hours worked than actually worked. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week in individual work weeks during their employment by Defendant. Nick & Ernie's operates an auto and truck repair business with four locations in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AYALA & WILLIAMS 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60613 Telephone: (312) 725-3696 PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Appeals Injunction Ruling in Golden Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Tashanna B. Golden, formerly known as Tashanna B. Pearson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, Defendant, Case No. 17-01005-ess, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 18, 2017, Ms. Golden commenced the adversary proceeding as a putative class action, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, by filing a complaint against JP Morgan Chase Bank, Firstmark Services, GoldenTree Asset, and National Collegiate Trust seeking a determination that certain debts that she incurred as a student are not nondischargeable student loan debts under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(8)(B), and a finding of contempt against the Defendants for civil contempt for willful violations of the bankruptcy discharge injunction. On Oct. 17, 2017, Ms. Golden filed a First Amended Complaint to add class action allegations and additional Defendants. And on Nov. 2, 2017, Ms. Golden voluntarily dismissed Defendant GoldenTree Asset Management from the action. On May 7, 2025, Ms. Golden's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is granted. The Defendants are restrained and enjoined from taking any acts to collect on loans that exceed the cost of attendance as defined by Internal Revenue Code Sec. 221(D), irrespective of whether those loans were guaranteed by TERI, that are held by Ms. Golden and the Putative Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint, that have an outstanding balance subject to collection. The Defendants are also restrained and enjoined from taking any acts to collect on post-graduation loans incurred to pay for living expenses while pursuing professional licensure, that are held by Ms. Golden and the Putative Class Members, as the class is described in the Amended Complaint, that have an outstanding balance subject to collection. The appellate case is entitled Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Golden, Case No. 25-02871, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on May 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TASHANNA B. GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com Defendant-Appellant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY is represented by: H. Peter Haveles, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 822-2280 Facsimile: (212) 259-8586 Email: peter.haveles@akerman.com PENNYMAC MORTGAGE: Appeals Denied Suit Dismissal Bid to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Roberto Verthelyi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05028-MWF-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code due to unlawful business practices. On Aug. 20, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied on Feb. 26, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the Defendants violated the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act when they failed to adopt an appropriate replacement benchmark under the Act. On Mar. 25, 2025, the Defendants moved to certify the Court's Feb. 26, 2025 Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the appeal, which Judge Fitzgerald granted on May 5, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Verthelyi v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust, et al., Case No. 25-3140, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERTO VERTHELYI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nicole Lavallee, Esq. Daniel Barenbaum, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Defendants-Petitioners PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, et al. are represented by: Matthew Umhofer, Esq. Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq. UMHOFER, MITCHELL & KING, LLP 767 S. Alameda Street, Suite 270 Los Angeles, CA 90021 - and - Steven Farina, Esq. Melissa B. Collins, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 680 Maine Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024 PLANET HOME: Suit Alleges Violation of Servicemembers' Relief Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Gleespen, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00751 (D. Conn., May 9, 2025) arises out Defendant's alleged violations of the longstanding financial protections afforded to Plaintiff and other military members under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as well as asserts claims for unjust enrichment. The Defendant denied Plaintiff's request that it apply the lower interest rate mandated by the SCRA for the period that a servicemember is on active duty and illegally retained higher interest in excess of the SCRA maximum, says the suit. Planet Home Lending, LLC is a privately held mortgage banking firm headquartered in Meriden, CT. It is a subsidiary of Planet Financial Group, LLC, which provides lending, origination, servicing, and asset management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 352 Rutland Road, #1 Brooklyn, NY 11225 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 Facsimile: (212) 248-7908 E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Lee Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 South Eight Street, Ste. 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 767-0521 E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com owen@teskelaw.com PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Torres Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE TORRES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Valerie Torres, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs sue Defendants ActiveProspect, Prudential Financial, and Assurance IQ, alleging that ActiveProspect violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by intercepting, recording, and storing real time interactions with a webform on Prudential's website without consent. The Plaintiffs further allege that Prudential and Assurance violated CIPA by employing ActiveProspect and embedding its software services on the Prudential website without proper disclosure to website users. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 5, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude expert report of Dr. Zubair Shafiq. On Apr. 17, 2025, Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and finding as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude expert report. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiffs have not shown that ActiveProspect attempted to understand or decipher the contents of the Plaintiffs' communications on its webform while the communications were in transit, there is no genuine dispute as to whether ActiveProspect read or attempted to read those communications under section 631 of CIPA. Further, because there is no predicate violation of section 631 on the part of ActiveProspect, there is no genuine dispute as to whether Prudential and Assurance aided and abetted ActiveProspect in violation of section 631. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned Torres, et al. v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3203, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 19, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 30, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 30, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VALERIE TORRES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Dena C. Sharp, Esq. GIRARD SHARP, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Defendants-Appellees PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al. are represented by: Kelly M. Klaus, Esq. Jonathan Hugh Blavin, Esq. Virginia Grace Davis, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Sidney M. Eisner, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 QUEENSLAND HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ned Hammond, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court alleges racial discrimination at Queensland Health facilities in the North West Hospital and Health Service and Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service regions. It alleges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients were dismissed and given substandard care contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. What's next? First Nations elder Robert "Bongo" Sagigi has called on the state government to meet with Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities in Queensland's north to discuss the issue. A class action lawsuit has been launched accusing Queensland Health of racial discrimination in facilities in two regional Queensland areas. The class action filed in the Federal Court alleges state health services discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients at facilities administered by the North West Hospital and Health Service and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service. The area covered by the North West Hospital and Health Service includes Julia Creek, Mount Isa, and Mornington Island. The Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service covers the top end of the state down to Wujal Wujal, and also includes a number of islands in the Torres Strait. It alleged the state withheld or denied adequate healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, while dismissing patient concerns. Rebecca Jancauskas, director of JGA Saddler who is representing the plaintiffs, said the actions alleged in the lawsuit amount to racial discrimination and should be addressed. "These hospitals and health services are alleged to have treated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients differently based on their race or factors that were closely associated to their race," she said. "The claim we've filed in the Federal Court alleges breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act." The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 made it unlawful to draw distinctions or exclude people on the basis of their race. 'Gone on for far too long' Ms Jancauskas said her law firm had been meeting with patients alleging racial discrimination and elders representing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the regions named in the suit. She said patients seeking medical attention at Queensland Health facilities were talked down to and given "substandard" care. "We've heard stories from elders and community representatives about them turning up to hospitals seeking treatment, complaining of debilitating, intense pain on repeated occasions," she said. "And they've been dismissed on the basis that they're probably under the influence of particular substances, or alcohol." Ms Jancauskas said the claim alleged Queensland Health had failed to address systemic racism for decades despite issues being identified in previous inquiries and reports. "Our claim period alleges that this conduct has been ongoing since December of 1996 and it spans right up until March of this year," she said. "If there was a simple, straightforward fix, I like to think that would have been implemented by now. "But unfortunately there's a bit more to it and we are talking about systems, procedures, beliefs, systems that have been entrenched for decades, and it has sadly resulted in conduct that has gone on for far too long." 'Listen, listen, listen' Robert 'Bongo' Sagigi is a First Nations elder in the Torres Strait community on Badu Island, and believes the state government should meet with the community on their terms to discuss the current state of the Queensland health system. "The director generals, and all the mob down there, sitting in an office in Brisbane, they don't know what's happening on the grassroots level," he said. Mr Sagigi also previously called for a reinstatement of the Torres Model of Care, which he said has been functionally dismantled. He said the lawsuit was "wake-up call" for the state government to address what he called "systemic racism" in the system. "Listen, listen, listen, government. Listen to us because they asked us to vote for them and when they get in, they forget about us," he said. "The democracy that we're practising has been thrown out the window." Queensland Health declined to comment. [GN] RB HEALTH: O'Dea Appeals 2nd Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCINDA O'DEA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Lucinda O'Dea, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RB Health (US), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-07048-SB-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged consumer fraud over its failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne treatment products. The complaint seeks damages and other relief for the Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts. On Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 4, 2024. On Jan. 13, 2025, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Blumenfeld granted on Apr. 22, 2025. The Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are dismissed for lack of Article III standing, and their claims are otherwise dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned O'Dea, et al. v. RB Health (US), LLC, Case No. 25-3240, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 20, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on May 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on June 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 12, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCINDA O'DEA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Alex Rafael Straus, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 - and - John Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 - and - Mark Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 - and - Melody Dickson, Esq. Thomas Philip Cartmell, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - R. Jason Richards, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Defendant-Appellee RB HEALTH (US), LLC is represented by: Andrew James Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP One CityCenter 850, 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - Anthony Monaco, Esq. SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60611 - and - Sonya D. Winner, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105 ROSE HILLS: Appeals Arbitration Order in Gonzales Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROSE HILLS COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Manuel Gonzales, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rose Hills Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04632-MEMF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. On Oct. 10, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied on Apr. 6, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Gonzales v. Rose Hills Company, et al., Case No. 25-2951, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 7, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MANUEL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91205 Defendants-Appellants ROSE HILLS COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Carrie Marie Francis, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Brown et al. Suit Over Defective Ranges ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROCKY BROWN, SARAH YOUNG, and STEPHENIE BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC; JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00204 (E.D. Tenn., May 9, 2025), arises from Samsung's defective slide-in electric ranges. These ranges ranges include dangerous latent defects in the design and/or the manufacturing of their front-mounted knobs that render the ranges susceptible to unintentional actuation. When the knobs are accidentally contacted, the ranges activate without warning and cause the heating of electric range cooktops, unbeknownst to consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered economic injury and severe emotional distress as a result of purchasing these electric ranges. The Defendant's sale of the Recalled Ranges (i) violated Tennessee Product Liability law; (ii) violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; (iii) constituted breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (iv) constituted breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular ; and (vi) constituted unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 1920 Adelicia St., Ste 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com - and - Alyson S. Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Amy C. Johnsgard, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-4990 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com ajohnsgard@sshhzlaw.com SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Class Opposition Docs in Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: SAZERAC CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case No. 7:23-cv-02751-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=cbZt20 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 SELECTQUOTE INC: West Palm Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WEST PALM BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In Re SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-6903, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of Plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the company's common stock between February 8, 2021, and May 11, 2021. Specifically, the complaint alleges the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the relevant period. The Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs. On Nov. 19, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 27, 2023. On Apr. 1, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 31, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint. On July 31, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Hellerstein granted on Apr. 3, 2025. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently cured the deficiencies found in their first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is granted. The appellate case is captioned In Re: SelectQuote, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-1180, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 7, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Appellees SELECTQUOTE, INC., et al. are represented by: David B. Anders, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 - and - Howard Gregory Baker, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 - and - Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 SPOTHERO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Parking Fee Reservations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Edward Galvez filed a class action lawsuit against SpotHero Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims SpotHero uses drip pricing to sell its parking reservations. Where: The SpotHero class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses SpotHero of using a deceptive practice known as "drip pricing" to sell its parking reservations. Plaintiff Edward Galvez filed a class action lawsuit on April 4, claiming SpotHero advertises one price for its parking spots only to tack on mandatory "processing" fees at the end of the checkout process. He claims SpotHero's alleged use of drip pricing is illegal under California law, which prohibits businesses from making or disseminating any statement that is "untrue or misleading" in connection with the sale of goods or services. "Drip pricing" is a practice in which companies advertise only part of a product's total price to lure in consumers and do not mention other mandatory charges until late in the buying process, the lawsuit says. SpotHero is a digital parking reservation service, connecting drivers seeking parking spaces with available spots in parking garages, lots, and valet services across North America. Galvez wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased parking spots from SpotHero and paid hidden service fees. SpotHero drip pricing impedes price comparison, class action argues Galvez claims SpotHero's alleged use of drip pricing interferes with consumers' ability to price compare and manipulates them into paying fees that are either hidden entirely or not presented until late in the transaction. "SpotHero's practice of adding fees at the end frustrated comparison shopping, impeded competition, and led consumers to pay more for their parking spots than they otherwise would," the SpotHero drip pricing class action says. Galvez claims SpotHero is guilty of violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law and of quasi-contract. He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. Drip pricing is not uncommon -- recently, a separate class action claimed Supreme Golf uses "drip pricing" to ambush customers with hidden fees when booking tee times at golf courses in New York. The plaintiff is represented by Christin Cho and Simon Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP.The SpotHero drip pricing class action lawsuit is Galvez, et al. v. SpotHero Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02974, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Gulick Suit to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Paula Gulick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-2573, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs Paula Gulick and Sharon Schlehuber brought this putative class action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, asserting a breach of contract claim and seeking a declaratory judgment. On Apr. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Both parties filed five motions to exclude or strike expert testimony. On Apr. 30, 2025, Judge Toby Crouse granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court also granted in part and denied in part one of the Plaintiffs' motions to exclude expert testimony, and the rest of the parties' motions to exclude or strike expert testimony are denied. The appellate case is captioned Paula Gulick, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. 25-602, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 14, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. is represented by: Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq. Eric L. Robertson, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 - and - Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Daniel R. Adler, Esq. Matt Aidan Getz, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Email: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com STOCKX LLC: Faces Mansfield Class Suit Over Hidden Processing Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL MANSFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STOCKX LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-04250 (N.D. Cal., May 16, 2025) contends that for over five months, the Defendant has nickel and dimed online purchasers on its website in violation of the California Civil Code section 1770(a)(29)(A). According to the complaint, whenever a consumer visits the clothing website StockX.com and selects an item for purchase, they are not shown the total cost upfront. Instead, consumers are quoted an artificially low "BUY NOW for" $ XXX.XX price which excludes all fees, only to sneak in a hidden "Processing Fee" after consumers click through various screens required to make a purchase. To make matters worse, the Defendant's fee is affirmatively disclosed for the first and only time on the final "Place Order" screen, after consumers input all their shipping and credit card information. This cheap trick has enabled Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Mansfield purchased the Nike Air Zoom Pegasus Premium White Volt from Defendant in April 2025. During this transaction, the Plaintiff was forced to pay Defendant’s Processing Fee, which amounted to $12.78, the suit alleges. The Defendant is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant offers buying and selling of sneakers, apparel, electronics, collectibles, trading cards, and accessories throughout the United States, including in the state of California. The Defendant owns and operates the universally accessible, interactive website https://www.StockX.com, which website accepts orders from all the United States and delivers products to all the states, including California, as part of its regular course of business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alessi, et al., v. Synagro Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00445 (N.D. Tex., Filed Feb. 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an order granting agreed motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to LR 23.2. The Court will set the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion of class certification at the time the Court enters a Scheduling Order in this case. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability. Founded in 1986, Synagro provides a system of solutions for civic and commercial organizations that manages by-products.[CC] TENNESSEE: Fails to Protect Foster Children, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Wegner, writing for The Tennessean, reports that Tennessee foster children file class action lawsuit against DCS leaders. Key Points -- A class action lawsuit accuses top leaders at the Tennessee Department of Children's Services of failing to protect and support the kids in its care. -- The class action lawsuit was filed by 13 foster children and their legal representatives against Tennessee DCS Commissioner Margie Quin and two of her deputies. A group of foster children accused top leaders of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services of failing to protect them and others in the department's care in a scathing new lawsuit. The class action suit was filed on May 19 in federal court by 13 foster children ages 1-16, alongside their legal representatives. It named DCS Commissioner Margie Quin and two of her deputies, Carla Aaron and Karen Jointer Bryant, as defendants. The 74-page suit details a litany of issues with DCS from 2017 onward, which marked the end of federal oversight of the department following Brian A., et al. v. Bredesen, et al., a previous lawsuit known commonly as Brian A. The new lawsuit says DCS has since failed to protect children from harm, investigate sexual abuse claims, vet foster parents and provide proper mental health and educational support for children in custody. It also says the department continues to overburden caseworkers, despite Quin's claims in recent years that caseloads were capped for new hires. The suit went on to say DCS committed "widespread and systematic" violations of children's rights, including unsafe placements in transitional homes or inadequate facilities like state offices and hotels for months on end. It also lambastes the state's reliance on privately owned facilities to place children as a foster family shortage continues. New York-based nonprofit A Better Childhood is representing the children in the lawsuit, along with law firm Barry, Bass and Sims. Marcia Lowry, a lawyer who worked on the Brian A. lawsuit, now directs the nonprofit. "It is very troubling that Tennessee turned its back on protecting children after the Brian A. lawsuit ended,” Lowry said in a May 20 news release from the organization. "This foster care system got better when the state was under a court order, but those efforts disappeared after court oversight ended. It is sad to think that Tennessee foster children have to fight this fight again." A spokesperson for the Tennessee Office of the Attorney General, which represents DCS and its leaders, declined to comment on the case. Recent scrutiny over DCS DCS has been under a wave of scrutiny since 2022 when it was revealed that hundreds of kids were spending nights in state office buildings as the agency struggled to find immediate placements for them. The revelations came just a few months after Quin took over leadership of the department. In March 2023, Quin told state lawmakers that children were no longer sleeping in DCS offices. However, Tennessean reporting revealed that children began staying in DCS offices again by November 2023. The trend continued into 2024 and this year, albeit at a much lower rate than before. DCS Commissioner Margie Quin speaks during a budget presentation at Cordell Hull State Office Building in Nashville, Tenn., March 1, 2023. Earlier this year, DCS told The Tennessean the issue stems from a growing number of children with severe behavioral or medical needs who can't safely be placed in temporary, transitional homes. The department also has grappled with securing beds for children through private health care partners. In February, Quin told The Tennessean the lack of beds for children with intensive behavioral needs is an ongoing concern, but said things have improved since the state increased its provider payment rates by nearly 10% since 2022. When asked why the state does not have its own facilities for children with complicated needs, Quin's answer was direct: "Because we don't do that well. We don't need to do that." Quin also said she has worked to cap caseloads for new hires and expand training, raise salaries and bolster retention for caseworkers. More: Tennessee's DCS commissioner came onboard amid 2022 crisis. Here's what's changed in her first two years. Recent lawsuits against DCS The new class action lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits against DCS. A lawsuit filed in July 2023 said DCS failed to connect undocumented immigrant children with a federal program that would give them a path to lawful permanent residency, also known as a "green card." In 2024, a judge approved a final settlement that included a comprehensive DCS policy change to support immigrant youth. In February 2024, a Black couple filed a lawsuit against multiple DCS employees, Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers, Coffee County and its sheriff's deputies after their five small children, including a breastfeeding baby, were taken away from them after a March 2023 traffic stop. The case drew criticism from activists who questioned whether race played a role in the traffic stop and DCS' decision to remove the children from the family. In June 2024, a lawsuit filed by three families and Disability Rights Tennessee, a nonprofit legal services organization, claimed unconstitutional mistreatment and "barbaric violence" faced by young people with disabilities in juvenile detention centers. Both cases are ongoing. [GN] TRADER JOE'S: Morrison Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE MORRISON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Valerie Morrison, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-RBM-DTF, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the Defendant's continuing failure to disclose to consumers that certain Trader Joe's dark chocolate products contain unsafe levels of lead and cadmium, in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law. On Aug. 26, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro granted on Mar. 27, 2025. The Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find the presence of heavy metals or risk of the presence of heavy metals in the products was exclusively within the Defendant's possession or that a consumer could not reasonably obtain such information given the presence of heavy metals has been well publicized for many years. The appellate case is captioned Morrison, et al. v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 25-2895, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VALERIE MORRISON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55401 - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. MILBERG LLP 1 Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Defendant-Appellee TRADER JOE'S COMPANY is represented by: Dawn Sestito, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Danielle Feuer, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 - and - Martha Hutton, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 UNITED STATES: Vandermeer Appeals Suit Dismissal to Federal Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- VANDERMEER MOTOR CO., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-00647-KCD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Federal Claims. This 15-year litigation stems from actions that the Government took during the global financial crisis of the late 2000s to stave off the collapse of two of the nation's largest automakers: General Motors and Chrysler. The remaining Plaintiffs in this case, Duplessis Cadillac Volvo, Vandermeer Chevrolet Buick Oldsmobile, and Huntington Chevrolet, Inc., are automobile dealerships whose franchise agreements with GM were terminated through GM's bankruptcy process. The Plaintiffs allege that the Government took their property, including the franchise agreements themselves, real and personal property necessary to carrying out those agreements, and certain intangible assets associated with their businesses, without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on Mar. 20, 2024, which the Defendant moved to dismiss. On Mar. 12, 2025, Judge Kathryn C. Davis entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a viable direct-takings claim against the United States. The appellate case is captioned Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. US, Case No. 25-1762, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on May 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants VANDERMEER MOTOR CO., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Charles Arthur Bennett, Esq. BENNETT INJURY LAW 12770 Coit Rd., Ste. 720 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (972) 972-4969 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: Margaret Jantzen, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 353-7994 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ahmad Estate Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ESTATE OF BIBI AHMAD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Estate of Bibi Ahmad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02303-MRA-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Central District of California. The case arises from the misleading Medicare Advantage ("MA") advertising practices of United Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group. The Plaintiff brings claims under the California False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as federal statutes including the Federal Trade Commission Act and Lanham Act. On Mar. 11, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to bring extrinsic matter to the attention of court; in the alternative, leave to file supplemental briefing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Mar. 28, 2025, Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application. The Court held that it does not minimize the seriousness of the allegations in the complaint or the grave issues in addressing vulnerable populations access to healthcare. However, on the question of whether the claims in the Plaintiff's complaint are preempted, the law makes clear that they are. For this reason, the motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint is granted with prejudice. The case was dismissed. The appellate case is captioned Estate of Bibi Ahmad v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, et al., Case No. 25-2746, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on June 9, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on July 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ESTATE OF BIBI AHMAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ally Alain, Esq. ALLY LAW 28202 Cabot Road, 3rd Floor Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. Patrick James Fuster, Esq. Heather Lynn Richardson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and – Gillian B. Miller, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 VANGUARD GROUP: Judge Rejects $40-Mil. Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Dinah Wisenberg Brin, writing for ThinkAdvisor, reports that a federal judge has rejected a plan for Vanguard to pay $40 million to resolve a class-action dispute arising from its target-date funds, citing a "strange situation" in which the plaintiffs are guaranteed to get more money if the court rejects the settlement. Vanguard last year agreed to settle the lawsuit, which stems from corporate retirement plans' fleeing target-date funds for institutional equivalents, leaving retail investors with a big capital gains tax bill. The U.S. District Court in Philadelphia had preliminarily approved the $40 million settlement, with over $13 million designated for attorneys' fees. Vanguard then settled a Securities and Exchange Commission probe into regulatory charges with the SEC and various states for the same conduct addressed in the lawsuit. Under the SEC settlement, Vanguard must pay $135 million in remediation to harmed investors, a court memorandum filed May 21, Monday, stated. "But there's a catch in the SEC settlement. Vanguard negotiated a deal that it can reduce its payment into that fund by $40 million if the proposed settlement in this case is approved. But if settlement in this case doesn't happen for whatever reason, then Vanguard must pay that same $40 million into the SEC's fund instead," the judge wrote. "So Vanguard is on the hook for $135 million regardless of whether we approve or reject the settlement in this case. But it matters to the class -- and plaintiffs' counsel. If we approve, the harmed investors lose $13 million to attorneys' fees," he said. "If we reject, the harmed investors get that $13 million themselves, through the SEC settlement" and could potentially recover even more because the litigation will continue, he added, noting that plaintiffs' interests have diverged from their lawyers' interests. A class member, John Hughes, a lawyer himself, brought the SEC settlement to the court's attention "in a remarkable objection," U.S. District Judge John Murphy wrote, saying neither Vanguard nor plaintiffs' representatives had done so. "He asks us to reject the proposed class settlement because how can any settlement stand when it is guaranteed to net the class less money? A simple and compelling point. The named plaintiffs, their counsel, and Vanguard cannot deny the math. But they adamantly, and creatively, dispute Mr. Hughes's objection. After oral argument and additional rounds of briefing, we can safely conclude that the proposed settlement provides no value to the class and therefore reject it," Murphy wrote. The court found the previously agreed-on court settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate for the class because the SEC settlement "guarantees class members the exact benefit that would have been provided by this proposed settlement -- but without deduction for attorneys' fees" or requiring plaintiffs to give up their ability to pursue their own claims. The judge noted that a claims administrator had sent over 300,000 notices to potential class members in the proposed court settlement after the preliminary approval in November. The parties must provide the court with a status report by May 30. [GN] VINCENT NADON: Sexual Assault Class Settlement Reaches $21-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Raymond, writing for CTV News, reports that lawyers representing a class action against a former Ottawa doctor who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting dozens of patients say a proposed $21-million settlement has been reached. The lawsuit concerns the actions of Dr. Vincent Nadon, who worked at the University of Ottawa Health Services clinic. Nadon pleaded guilty in 2018 to 14 sexual assault and voyeurism charges involving 49 victims and was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was granted full parole in July 2021. A class action was launched in 2018 against Nadon, the University of Ottawa, and the clinic where he worked. It was initially seeking $210 million, and was later updated to $500 million in 2021, when the class action was certified. In a news release Wednesday, May 21, class counsel Flaherty McCarthy LLP said a proposed $21-million settlement had been reached. "The class action, commenced in 2018, has been vigorously litigated for over seven years. It was brought on behalf of former patients who were sexually assaulted by Dr. Nadon, and in many cases secretly photographed or filmed without their knowledge. The University of Ottawa and the University of Ottawa Health Services do not admit any wrongdoing," the news release said. University of Ottawa spokesperson Jesse Robichaud said in a statement, "The University and the other parties to the class action agreed to a negotiated settlement which, if approved by the court, will provide financial compensation to eligible class members. The proposed settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the University. We will have no additional comment as this matter remains before the court." The settlement has yet to be approved. It will come before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa on Sept. 8, the news release says. If approved, it will provide financial compensation to eligible class members, including all patients of the clinic who were photographed or filmed by Nadon in a private setting, without their consent or knowledge, or who were sexually assaulted by him. Anyone seeking more information about the proposed settlement, the claims process, or the upcoming court hearing are encouraged to visit www.drnadonclassaction.com or contact Flaherty McCarthy LLP at info@drnadonclassaction.com. Class members who wish to object to the settlement must send a written objection to info@drnadonclassaction.com no later than 5 p.m. Aug. 29. [GN] WALGREEN CO: Flores Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alejandro Flores, Juan Santos, and Lizette Farias, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV2025-1007 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01388-DAD-SCR. The Plaintiffs Flores and Farias allege that they "and the CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB CLASS" are entitled to recover "thirty days of pay as penalty for Defendant not paying all wages due at time of termination" pursuant to Labor Code section 203."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Max Fischer, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Anahi Cruz, Esq. Ilana Gomez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com ilana.gomez@morganlewis.com WELLS FARGO: Appeals Class Cert. Order in SEB Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled SEB Investment Management AB, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03811, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this securities class action against the Defendants, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Trina L. Thompson granted on Apr. 25, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23 requirements. The Court further orders that Lead Plaintiff SEB Investment Management AB and additional Plaintiff West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund be appointed as Class Representatives, and orders that Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP shall serve as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned Wells Fargo & Company, et al. v. SEB Investment Management AB, et al., Case No. 25-3021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Email: jjoost@ktmc.com skaplan@ktmc.com - and - David R. Kaplan, Esq. Marti Worms, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com mwolrms@saxenawhite.com - and - Shaman Nirmul, Esq. Joshua A. Materese, Esq. Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Email: snirmul@ktmc.com jmatelrese@ktmc.com jdancona@ktmc.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Bonni S. Jensen, Esq. KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest, 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Email: bob@1robelrtdklausnelr.com bonni@1robelrtdklausnelr.com Defendants-Petitioners WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Brendan P. Cullen, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 550 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 461-5600 Email: cu11enb@su11clrom.com - and - Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 Email: viapianoc@su11crom.com - and - Leonid Traps, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Email: traps1@su11crom.com ZA RESTAURANT: George Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SYREETA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ZA RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC (d/b/a RESERVE CUTS), and ALBIR ALLAHAM, Case No. 1:25-cv-04138 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff George appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff George the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff George to all other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Reserve Cuts. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Contemporary Kosher steak house, located at 40 Broad Street, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ZYNGA INC: Dougherty et al. Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYLL DOUGHERTY, DELIA CAMARGO, and LAWRENCE GARCIA, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04051 (N.D. Cal., May 9, 2025) arises from Defendant's alleged deceptive business practices designed to manipulate players into spending large sums of money on in-game purchases. The Defendant's games use a series of false and deceptive advertising tricks to artificially inflate the perceived worth of the bundle of items that players purchase. The Plaintiff and other players are directly presented with offers of limited time discounts or special sales, suggesting that the packs contain items valued at more than the offered price. However, the Defendant shows false discount and sale offers to new players of the games from the very start of their game play, says the suit. Headquartered San Mateo, CA, Zynga Inc. is a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., a video game publishing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Roza Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos St., Ste. A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 505-9550 E-mail: liana@janove.law ********* 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 ***