250602.mbx

250602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 109 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia 3M COMPANY: Nance Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 4EVER MARKETING: Hindi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida 4TH AVENUE MARKETING: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ACRT PACIFIC: Carmack Suit Removed to E.D. California ADAM FOROUGHI: Faces Smith Class Suit Over 20.1% Stock Price Drop ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bid for Protective Order in Ray Denied as Moot ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Allman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contaminated Rice AMAZON.COM INC: Rice Products Contain Heavy Metals, Blum Alleges AMN HEALTHCARE: Alizadeh Suit Removed to C.D. California AMPLITUDE INC: June 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Atkins" AMPLITUDE INC: Obtains Dismissal of Pension Fund Class Suit AMPLITUDE INC: Plaintiff in "Willey" Dismisses Suit AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Robertson Says ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ASCENSION HEALTH: Court Dismisses Nicholas Insurance Suit BINANCE HOLDINGS: Superior Court Denies Appeal in Investors Suit BLUESTAR RESORT & GOLF: Obrien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOB EVANS: Plummer Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach BSV CLAIMS: Court of Appeal Rejects Claim Over Delisting Damages CAINE & WEINER COMPANY: Waters Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CALCON MUTUAL: Haynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CALIFORNIA WASTE SERVICES: Pina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Interest Rate Class Suit for $245MM CASINO LLC: Rodriguez-Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENCORA INC: Gets Final OK of Opioid Class Suit Settlement CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LA: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLASSIC COLLISION: Molina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COAST 2 COAST: Rennaker Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA COINBASE GLOBAL: Bender Sues Over Failure to Protect Information COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Nessler Suit Over $19.85 Common Stock Drop COINBASE INC: Scheuber Sues Over Failure to Protect Information COMPLETE PAYROLL: Connors Sues Over Failures to Secure Information CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Security Breach Suits CONSUMER CELLULAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 3, 2026 CS DISCO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Class Status Conference Set for June 2 DAIOHS U.S.A. INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DANONE NORTH: Faces Saucedo Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices DETOX MARKET: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Ullom Suit Over Drop in Share Price DIRECT TRAVEL: Toolsie Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8 DOMINGUEZ & SONS TRUCKING: Esparza Suit Removed to N.D. California DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over 36% Stock Price Drop DRINK LMNT: Drink Mix Contains Maltodextrin, Vaughn Suit Alleges ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in "Hunter" Remains Pending in 7th Cir. ELEVANCE HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 1 ELEVANCE HEALTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, 401(k) Plan Member Says EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Aug. 6 EQUITYEXPERTS: North Carolina Homeowners Gain Ground in Class Suit EVENFLO CO: Agrees to $3.5MMM Booster Seat Safety Class Settlement EXELON CORP: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for July 6 FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California FOGO DE CHAO: Faces Reis Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices FORD MOTOR: Faces Provo Suit Over Defective Off-Road Vehicles FREESE II INC: Tucker Allowed to Amend Complaint FRESHREALM INC: Casaneres Suit Removed to N.D. California FUTURE FINTECH: LaBelle Securities Class Suit Pending in New Jersey GEN DIGITAL INCORPORATED: Reisman Suit Transferred to D. Arizona GEO GROUP: Awaits High Court Ruling in Aurora Detainees Suit GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Detainees' Suit Remains Stayed GERON CORPORATION: Faces 2 Class Suits Over RYTELO Statements GLENS FALLS: Schultz Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges GO BIG LLC: Macdonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Class Suit Stayed GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Kinnie Ma Settlement for Court Approval GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Younker Class Suit Stayed GRUEN ASSOCIATES: Birch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GVR HOSPITALITY: Campoverde Seeks to Recover Bussers' Unpaid Wages HADDAD APPAREL: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Class Suit Remains Pending HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend EDNY Securities Suit HEALTHCARE HD: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia HERTZ CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sconce Due March 30, 2026 HONEST CO: Inks $20MM Settlement in IPO Securities Suit HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California ILLINOIS: Bid for Class Cert in Kainz Remains August 1 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS: Court Blocks Rodriguez's Detention INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Rojas Suit Removed to E.D. Washington IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 14 IQBAR INC: IQ Bar Contains Less Protein, Shahinian Suit Alleges JAF COMMUNICATIONS: $4.5MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval JAMES HARDIE: Continues to Defend Australia Securities Class Suit JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of $145MM Deal in Xyrem Suit JEROME HARRIS: Class Cert Bid Opposition Briefs Due June 6 JEROME HARRIS: Class Cert Briefs in Carmichael Due June 6 JIPYONG LLC: BHS Law Sues Over Unfair Competition Law Violation JOSEPH J. WILLIAMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says KARMAGREEN LLC: Bemis Sues Over Psychologically Addictive Products KDR REALTY: Residents Sue Over Apartments' Water System Problems KRISPY KREME: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 15 LABORATORY CORPORATION: Wise Suit Removed to E.D. California LANDMARK RECOVERY: Sued Over Systemic Constitutional Violations LASHIFY INC: Ragusano Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. LENDVIA LLC: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Strong" in Arizona LINDE INC: Townsend Suit Removed to C.D. California LIVANOVA PLC: $1.2MM Settlement in Cybersecurity Suit Has Final OK LIXIL USA: Faces Zuern Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info LODI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Camarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LOPEZ TIRE: Onofre Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under FLSA, NYLL LP CONSULTING GROUP: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Castaneda Suit Removed to C.D. California MDL 3035: Class Cert Briefs in Retirement Suit Due June 6 MICRO-MECHANICS INC: Lozano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MIDLAND STATES: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Suit for $3.1MM MOBILE TRAILER WORKS: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MONCLER USA INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Schaub Settlement Deal for Court OK MYDIGITALOFFICE.COM LLC: Simkin Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sutton Says NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Wade Due June 6 NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by June 6 NY GEORGE'S: Vizcaino Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA OAKES FARMS: Scalia Balks at Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Tip Pool ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Roberts Says ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit ORACLE CORPORATION: Agbunag Suit Removed to N.D. California ORGANON & CO: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit OS RESTAURANT: Yarbrough Suit Transferred to N.D. California PAULA'S CHOICE: Roblyer Files Skincare Products Mislabeling Suit PENSKE LOGISTICS: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PERFECT JEAN: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PHARUS FUNDING: Harrington FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PRE-PAID LEGAL: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PREMIER INSURANCE: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia PRO PROPERTY: Barrios Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime PROCTORU INC: McDowell Suit Transferred to N.D. California READY CAPITAL: Wyk Sues Over Securities Act Violation REAL BROKERAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miholich Due June 6 RED CAT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations RELIANSE OSUNA: Almoukdad Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages REPUBLIC BAR: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Sabana Suit Says ROBESON HEALTH: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 ROCKET COMPANIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 8 ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California SARGON ISAAC: Judge Grants Initial Nod in Tenant Class Settlement SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $8.25MM SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SERVICEAIDE INC: Barclay Sues Over Data Security Incident SERVICEAIDE INC: Faces Class Suits Due to Alleged Data Breach SERVICEAIDE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Raymond Says SERVICEAIDE INC: Thompson Files Suit in N.D. California SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers SIMPLY RIGHT: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Shah Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks to Certify Savings Plan Class SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Braddy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations SPICE ALLIANCE: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SPROUT FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davidson Due June 6 STAR EQUITY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Hudson Globl STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Hutton Suit Removed to C.D. California STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Shojaei Suit Removed to C.D. California SUGAR PAPER: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SURGE LABS INC: Cavalier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SWEETWATER SOUND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend "Fox" Securities Suit T-KEBAB BISTRO: Huang Sues Over California Labor Code Breach TARGET CORP: Veggie Straws Contain Chemical preservative, Suit Says TARGET CORP: Villa Sues Over Moisturizing Creams' Misleading Ads TARGET CORPORATION: Brodiski Sues Over TBPA Violation TEACHERS INSURANCE: Byrne Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties TENCHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Alleges TENNESSEE: Faces Keira Class Suit Over Failed Foster Care System TIP-TOP ROOFING: FRL, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert in Vriens TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Stay of Class Certification TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL: Davis Files Suit in N.D. Indiana UNILEVER UNITED: Adds Junk Fees to Consumers' Carts, Poore Alleges UNILEVER UNITED: Dove Body Wash Contains Allergens, Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: American Tribe Sue Over Abuse in Boarding Schools UNITED STATES: DHS Workers Win Class Cert in MSPB Action UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition Bid by June 3 UNITED STATES: Sued Over Unlawful Termination of Nonprofit Grants UNITED SURGICAL: Faces Janosky Class Suit Over Tobacco Surcharges UNITED WHOLESALE: Ohio Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Settlement in MyChart Class Suit Proposed VELVET CAVIAR: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VESTA MINE: Seeks More Time to File Certification Response VESTIS CORP: "O'Neill" Remains Pending in Delaware VESTIS CORP: $3.1MM Settlement in Cake Love Suit Has Final Court OK VESTIS CORP: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Suit VESTIS SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Ramos Due March 6, 2026 VIGIL NEUROSCIENCE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Sanofi VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Greenlights Class Suit over Probiotics WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Villatoro Suit Transferred to C.D. California WALMART INC: Butler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WALMART INC: Faces Thomas Suit Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend "Biddle" Antitrust Suit WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend "Unger" Antitrust Suit WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California WELLNOW URGENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.1-Mil. WHITLEY PEANUT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says WTC COMPANIES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website YRV ENTERPRISE: Alvarez Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Class Action Settlement Gets Court Nod ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Huiskamp Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02811-AT (N.D. Ga., May 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. -- https://www.1800flowers.com/ -- is a floral and foods gift retailer and distribution company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Nance Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ronnie Nance, et al., and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-900949.00 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 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04551-RMG. 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. Jacob M. Salow, 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 jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 4EVER MARKETING: Hindi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4Ever Marketing and IP LLC. The case is styled as Jibrael S. Hindi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 4Ever Marketing and IP LLC doing business as: 4Ever Young Anti-Aging Solutions, Case No. 0:25-cv-60958-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 4Ever Young -- https://4everyoungantiaging.com/ -- is ready to help with an array of youth-reviving services using the latest technologies and most sophisticated techniques currently available.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-5000 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com 4TH AVENUE MARKETING: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 4th Avenue Marketing LLC. The case is styled as Robert Lewis, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 4th Avenue Marketing LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02764-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. 4th Ave Market -- https://4thavemarket.com/ -- is an online Superstore for professional quality hair, beauty, and personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com ACRT PACIFIC: Carmack Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joe Carmack, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. ACRT PACIFIC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-00005804 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01481-DJC-CSK. The Plaintiff was employed with ACRT as a Vegetation Manager Inspector from January 2023 until his separation from employment on December 13, 2023. The Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that ACRT failed to pay him and putative class members overtime wages for all overtime hours worked as specified by the California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Chatman, Esq. Matthew P. Farrell, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: 628.600.2250 Facsimile: 628.221.5828 Email: rchatman@beneschlaw.com mpfarrell@beneschlaw.com - and - Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216.363.4500 Facsimile: 216.363.4588 Email: jparker@beneschlaw.com ADAM FOROUGHI: Faces Smith Class Suit Over 20.1% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN SMITH, derivatively on behalf of APPLOVIN CORP., Plaintiff, v. ADAM FOROUGHI, MATTHEW STUMPF, CRAIG BILLINGS, HERALD CHEN, MARGARET GEORGIADIS, ALYSSA HARVEY DAWSON, BARBARA MESSING, TODD MORGENFELD, EDWARD OBERWAGER, and EDUARDO VIVAS, Defendants, and APPLOVIN CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-04261 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2025 ) is a class action complaint against the Company's board of directors and executive officers for breaches of fiduciary duties and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board and senior executive officers occurring from at least May 10, 2023, to March 26, 2025. During that time the Defendants caused or allowed AppLovin Corp. to issue or make materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and business operations. AppLovin relies on third-party platforms like the Apple App Store and Google Play Store to distribute its developers' apps, collect payments made on in-app purchases, and target users with relevant advertising. In mid-2020, Google, Apple, and Meta Platforms initiated a multi-year global effort to restrict third-party tracking activity and limit advertisers' ability to collect app and user data across platforms and devices. The Defendants allegedly misled investors by, throughout the Relevant Period by failing to disclose that AppLovin's revenue and profit growth were unsustainable because of the Company's systematic exploitation of fraudulent advertising practices, including click spoofing and the use of a backdoor installation scheme to force unwanted apps on customers. On Feb. 26, 2025, investors began to learn the truth about AppLovin's fraudulent business practices when Culper Research and Fuzzy Panda Research published reports alleging several issues with AppLovin's practices. The Culper Report alleged that AppLovin exploits app permissions to force-feed silent, backdoor app installations onto users' phones, often through inadvertent clicks due to poor user experience design. The Panda Report also alleged that AppLovin illegally tracks children’s data and serves sex ads to minors. After the Culper Report and Panda Report were published, AppLovin's stock price fell by 12.2 percent, dropping from $377.06 to $331.00 per share on February 26, 2025. Then, on March 26, 2025, Muddy Waters Research published a report (the "Muddy Waters Report") concluding that AppLovin systematically used proprietary third-party data in ways that violated the terms of service of Facebook, Google, Snap, Reddit, as well as other platforms, potentially leading to backlash and service blocking and threatening the sustainability of AppLovin’s revenue growth. On this news, AppLovin's stock price plummeted 20.1 percent, dropping from $327.62 to $261.70 per share on March 27, 2025, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to hold the Board and executive officers accountable for making or causing the Company to make false and misleading statements in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company. AppLovin is a Palo Alto, California-based technology company that helps developers to market, monetize, analyze, and publish their mobile apps through the Company's digital advertising, marketing, and analytics platforms. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 5067 Metropolitan Plz Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, New York 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com drl@rowleylawpllc.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bid for Protective Order in Ray Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray v. AdaptHealth Corp., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00898 (M.D.N.C., Filed Oct. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order as follows: -- granting motion hearing; -- denying as moot motion for Protective Order and Stay of Proceedings filed by AdaptHealth; and -- granting motion to withdraw document regarding motion to certify class filed by Jerry W. Ray. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA). AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment.[CC] ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Allman Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Frederick L. Allman, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-01196 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05587 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Walmart -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Brandon Ballou, Esq. FRICKEY LAW FIRM 940 Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 400 Lakewood, CO 80214 Phone: (303) 237-7373 Fax: (303) 233-7313 Email: eballou@frickey.com The Defendants are represented by: Terence M Ridley, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 839-3800 Fax: (303) 839-3838 Email: tridley@spencerfane.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Contaminated Rice -------------------------------------------------------------- MSN reports that Amazon.com has been named in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in a Seattle federal court, accused of distributing rice products contaminated with arsenic and other heavy metals. The complaint targets 18 rice items available on the e-commerce platform, including products under well-known labels such as Ben's Original and Amazon's in-house Whole Foods Market 365 brand, reported Reuters. The legal filing alleged that Amazon sold rice containing harmful substances without alerting customers to potential health risks, particularly in households with children. According to the lawsuit, "Amazon sold these rice products with alarmingly high levels of heavy metals to an intended consumer audience that includes children, with no warning whatsoever about the dangers of heavy metals." Study Reveals Alarming Levels of Contamination The case followed the release of a new study by Healthy Babies, Bright Futures, a nonprofit organisation that investigates toxic chemical exposure in infants and children. Their research, conducted nationwide, involved 145 rice samples and revealed troubling results. Every sample contained arsenic, and 28 per cent of them surpassed the US Food and Drug Administration's safety threshold for arsenic levels in infant rice cereal. Additionally, cadmium was detected in all but one of the samples. Lead and mercury, both highly toxic elements, were present in more than a third of the samples tested. The findings intensified concerns about food safety and the long-term health consequences of toxic exposure from widely available consumer products. Amazon, headquartered in Seattle, declined to comment on the litigation, the report noted. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Rice Products Contain Heavy Metals, Blum Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY WRIGHT and MERRIMAN BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00977 (W.D. Wash., May 23, 2025) is a consumer class action individually and on behalf of all other members of the Class, who purchased for personal/household use and not resale of Rice Products against Amazon who sold the Rice Products with alarmingly high levels of heavy metals to an intended consumer audience that includes children, with no warning whatsoever about the dangers of heavy metals, asserting claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Washington common law. Rice is the most consumed food in the world and a dietary staple for over one billion children. Heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, are toxins known to pose significant and adverse health risks and consequences to humans. It is well-recognized that there is no safe level of human consumption of heavy metals, asserts the suit. Further, exposure to heavy metals can cause negative health effects such as various cancers; gastric and vascular disorders; liver, kidney, and brain damage; miscarriages; and reproductive disorders. Arsenic is especially harmful to adults and the development of children, the suit added. AMAZON.COM, INC. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Meredith Simons, Esq. Meredith Simons , Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com merediths@hbsslaw.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 778-9595 E-mail: rpeterson@4-justice.com AMN HEALTHCARE: Alizadeh Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Farrah Alizadeh, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada Corporation; AMN SERVICES, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07703 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04762. The Plaintiff brings seven causes of action: minimum wage violations; failure to pay overtime; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; waiting time penalties; and unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 575 Market Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 874-4230 Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com - and - Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 Email: sarah.kroll-rosenbaum@akerman.com anthony.sbardellati@akerman.com AMPLITUDE INC: June 3 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Atkins" -------------------------------------------------------- Amplitude Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Northern District of California set June 3, 2025 as hearing on its motion to dismiss the class action captioned Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc. On August 8, 2024, a putative privacy class action captioned Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04913 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company as a defendant. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all individuals who downloaded and used an application on their mobile device that embedded the Company's Software Development Kit ("SDK") and did not publicly disclose the Company in the application's notices or disclosures. The complaint asserts claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, California Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages and other relief. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on February 11, 2025, and the Company filed its reply on March 4, 2025. The Company also filed a motion to compel arbitration on April 8, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on May 6, 2025. The Company's motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration are pending and set for hearing on June 3, 2025. On September 18, 2024, an individual privacy action captioned Shah v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08155-MEMF-JPR was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company as a defendant. The lawsuit is brought by an individual who alleges to have used an application on his mobile device that embedded the SDK without explicitly identifying the Company in the application's notices or disclosures. The complaint asserts claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, California Wiretap Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages and other relief. On December 4, 2024, the court stayed the case pending final resolution of Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04913 (N.D. Cal.). AMPLITUDE INC: Obtains Dismissal of Pension Fund Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Amplitude Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Northern District of California has dismissed the class action styled Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund v. Amplitude, Inc., et al. On February 14, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Fund v. Amplitude, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00898 (the "Securities Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer as defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and February 16, 2022. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to the Company's business and financial outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2024, which was granted with leave to amend on October 2, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 23, 2024. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2024, and, on January 13, 2025, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On June 10, 2024, a shareholder derivative complaint captioned Hawkins v. Spenser Skates, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03460 (the "Derivative Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the Company's Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, and the current and former members of the Company's board of directors as defendants. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and contribution for alleged wrongdoing by the Company's directors and officers from September 21, 2021 through February 16, 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Derivative Action was stayed pending a resolution of any motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action. Following the dismissal of the Securities Class Action on January 13, 2025, the Derivative Action was dismissed without prejudice on February 21, 2025. AMPLITUDE INC: Plaintiff in "Willey" Dismisses Suit --------------------------------------------------- Amplitude Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff in the class action captioned Willey v. Amplitude, Inc., has voluntarily dismissed the case. On October 7, 2024, a putative privacy class action captioned Willey v. Amplitude, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07577 was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who accessed the Oscar Health website or application in Pennsylvania and entered information in response to prompts in the "Find a Plan" function. The complaint alleged that the Company's services operate on the Oscar Health website and application to intercept information submitted by users for a health insurance quote. The complaint asserted a claim under Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. The complaint sought unspecified damages and other relief. On December 5, 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case and re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2024. On January 27, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY: Nelson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amusement Industry, Inc. The case is styled as Delante Nelson, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Amusement Industry, Inc. d/b/a Westland Real Estate Group, Case No. 25STCV14700 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Amusement Industry, Inc. doing business as Westland Real Estate Group -- https://www.westlandrealestategroup.com/ -- is the owner and operator of Multi-Family Residential, Retail Properties, and Manufactured Home Communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Robertson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05616 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant inadequately protected computer systems. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their personal identifiable information including their names and Social Security numbers, exposed (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and members of the class were or are employees of Defendant. In carrying out its business, the Defendant obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and the Class. As such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Andy Frain Services, Inc. offers security services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Federman & Sherwood, Esq. 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Seeks to File Class Cert Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting him to file under seal portions of his motion for class certification, portions of the Declaration of Gareth J. Macartney, and exhibits attached to the Declaration of Alan Gudino. These documents reference information that the Defendant Arizona Beverages USA, LLC and non-party Circana Inc. have designated as confidential under the Protective Order. The Plaintiff states that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. However, the Plaintiff submits this request solely to comply with Civil L.R. 79-5 and the Protective Order and takes no position on whether Defendant or Circana satisfy the applicable standard for sealing this information. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3), the Defendant and Circana, as the designating parties, must file a declaration within seven days establishing that the documents warrant sealing. See also Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Arizona Beverages specializes in producing and distributing a wide range of beverages, including iced teas, energy drinks, juices, and sparkling waters. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6QnJy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Oct. 24, 2025, will move to certify a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). The Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for an Order as follows: 1. That this case is certified to proceed to the merits as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on all causes of action set forth in the Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint filed against the Defendant on behalf of the following Class: "All persons who purchased the Products in the state of California, for personal consumption and not for resale during the time period of four years prior to the filing of the complaint through the present (the "Class")." 2. That the Plaintiff Thomas Iglesias be appointed as Class Representative. 3. That Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Arizona Beverages specializes in producing and distributing a wide range of beverages, including iced teas, energy drinks, juices, and sparkling waters. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xA1HlG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Court Dismisses Nicholas Insurance Suit --------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge John A. Ross of the Eastern District of Missouri granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion of Defendants Ascension Health, Ascension Health d/b/a/ Ascension Personalized Care, and US Health and Life Insurance Company to dismiss claims in the case captioned as RYDER NICHOLAS, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ASCENSION HEALTH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00051-JAR (E.D. Mo.). The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief. This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Ryder Nicholas against Defendants regarding alleged wrongful cancellation of health insurance coverage. Plaintiff enrolled in a health insurance plan with Ascension Personalized Care through the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance Marketplace in January 2024. Plaintiff paid her monthly premium through Ascension's website portal. On or about May 8, 2024, Ascension experienced a data breach after a cyberattack, which caused Ascension's systems to shut down. Following the breach, Ascension's health records system and online portal were unavailable or not functioning properly. On or about May 14, 2025, Plaintiff received an email from Ascension about the data breach. In June and July 2024, Plaintiff visited Ascension's portal several times to attempt to submit premium payments, but the portal indicated that no premium was due and that her insurance coverage was still active. On July 23, 2024, Ascension Personalized Care informed Plaintiff via letter that it would no longer offer insurance plans starting January 1, 2025, but that currently covered members would still have coverage through December 31, 2024. On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff sought medical care at Ascension Medical Group Seton in Austin, Texas, believing this care was covered by her insurance policy. On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff received a $725 medical bill for the October 10 visit with no mention of insurance coverage. Plaintiff alleges that she realized after receiving this bill that her insurance coverage had been cancelled without notice and that Defendants failed to provide explanation for the cancellation. On behalf of a putative class of all people similarly situated who had their insurance coverage wrongfully cancelled, Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violations of the Texas Insurance Code; and (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Characterizing the complaint as facially deficient pleading, Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims. Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue her claims because Plaintiff fails to allege that her injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants' conduct and that Plaintiff's claims of emotional distress damages are not cognizable in a breach of contract action. Upon careful review of the Complaint, the Court concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that she has suffered an injury in fact that was caused by the wrongful actions of Defendants and can be redressed by the Court. The Court stated that Plaintiff adequately alleges that the unlawful cancellation of her insurance coverage caused her to incur a medical bill of approximately $750, which is a concrete and particularized injury that can be redressed if the Court finds that Plaintiff is due compensatory damages. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff has standing to pursue her claims. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to allege a breach of contract because Plaintiff has only generally alleged that Defendants breached the insurance coverage contract and has failed to point to any specific provision in the contract that Defendants allegedly breached. Upon careful examination of the Complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants have breached any specific contract provisions or have otherwise deprived her of her rights under the contract. Instead, Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants breached the Evidence of Coverage when Defendants failed to notify her of the cancellation of her coverage. Plaintiff does not cite to any portion of the contract that requires Defendants to provide her with notice of cancellation of coverage. Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that she has performed under the contract. Plaintiff merely relies on her conclusory allegation that she has performed her obligations under the contract. Plaintiff does not allege what those obligations are, nor does she allege how she has specifically performed her obligations. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide her with notice that it was canceling her insurance policy and by refusing to provide explanation for the cancellation. Defendants moved to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that if Defendants did not breach a contractual duty, they could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law. According to the Court, because Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that Defendants had a specific duty to continue her insurance coverage under the contract or to provide her with specific notice of the cancellations of her coverage, she cannot maintain a claim that Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, Plaintiff's cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed without prejudice. The Complaint alleges violations of Texas Insurance Code Sections 551.053, 551.055, 542.058, 541.060(a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(7). Defendants moved to dismiss these causes of action, arguing that Texas Insurance Code Sections 551.053 and 551.055 are not applicable to health insurance coverage and that Plaintiff has not properly alleged violations of the other cited statutes. Defendants argued that Plaintiff's Texas Insurance Code claims fail because Sections 551.053 and 551.055 apply only to liability insurance which does not include health insurance. The Court agreed that these statutes are not applicable to health insurance claims because they apply only to certain forms of liability insurance, which does not include health insurance pursuant to Texas Insurance Code Section 551.051(2). As to the remaining Texas Insurance Code claims, the Court concluded that Plaintiff's claims fail because Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that she had a contractual right to the benefits of an insurance policy. The Court explained that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that she should enjoy the benefits of the policy and that Defendants have no statutory obligations to Plaintiff under the Texas Insurance Code when no policy for coverage existed. Accordingly, because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege violations of the Texas Insurance Code, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Texas Insurance Code claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act based on the alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Defendants moved to dismiss this claim arguing that Plaintiff has failed to allege specific violations and that the claims fail to meet heightened pleading standards. According to the Court, because Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege claims for violations under the Texas Insurance Code, Plaintiff's claim under the TDTPA must also fail. Plaintiff specifically linked her TDTPA claim to her allegations of Texas Insurance Code violations. Therefore, Plaintiff's cause of action for violations of the TDTPA is dismissed . The Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that all of Plaintiff's substantive claims fail to state viable causes of action. However, the Court denied the motion insofar as it provided Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of the order, up to and including May 16, 2025, to file an amended complaint. The Court specified that if no amended complaint is filed within the allotted time, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 2 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWlsAu from PacerMonitor.com. * * * In a follow-up order dated May 23, Judge Ross dismissed the case, without prejudice, because Plaintiff has failed to file an amended Complaint within the time provided by the Court's prior order. BINANCE HOLDINGS: Superior Court Denies Appeal in Investors Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear an appeal from crypto firm Binance Holdings Ltd., which sought to stay a proposed investor class action against the company -- arguing that investors agreed to resolve their disputes with the company in arbitration. In 2022, a pair of investors launched a proposed class action against Binance, on behalf of investors who traded on the platform between 2019 and 2022, seeking damages against the company for selling derivatives without registration or a prospectus. The case has been certified as a class action, but the allegations have not been proven. Binance sought a stay of the case, arguing that investors that used the platform agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration, based on the terms of the user contract set out on its website. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected that argument, finding that the arbitration clause was "contrary to public policy and unconscionable," for various reasons. Among other things, the court cited the fact that the arbitration clause was buried in 50 pages of terms and conditions that users were required to agree to when opening an account online; that the clause gave the company broad power to alter the arbitration agreement; and that it repeatedly changed the forum for arbitrating disputes, ultimately to a jurisdiction where the process is prohibitively expensive for smaller claims. "Binance, as the party that designed and whose professionals drafted the contract, engineered the arrangement to take advantage of the complexity that was hidden behind that superficially benign appearance of an arbitration clause," the motion judge noted. The company appealed that ruling to Court of Appeal for Ontario, which rejected it, finding that there was no reversible error in the motion judge's decision. "We see no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge considering the issues of public policy and unconscionability on the basis of the typical cryptocurrency investor and the nature of disputes likely to arise under the arbitration clause," the appeal court said in its decision. Binance sought to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, which has now decided not to hear the case, and denied leave to appeal. [GN] BLUESTAR RESORT & GOLF: Obrien Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluestar Resort & Golf LLC. The case is styled as Connor Jerome Obrien, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bluestar Resort & Golf LLC, Case No. 25STCV14623 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." BlueStar Resort & Golf -- https://www.bluestargolf.com/ -- provides professional management services for resort communities, HOA's, golf courses, restaurants, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law - and - Jean Hopkins Power, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-875-2008 Email: j.power@d.law BOB EVANS: Plummer Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN PLUMMER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS, LLC and VIRGINIA TOUR, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00506-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 8, 2025) is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for breaching their fiduciary duties in the management, operation and administration of the Bob Evans 401(k) Retirement Plan. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to act prudently and in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and breached their fiduciary duties in various ways. Specifically, among other failings, the Defendants (i) failed to investigate the availability of lower-cost share classes of certain mutual funds; (ii) failed to prudently select and monitor the Plan's stable value fund; (iii) failed to prudently select and monitor the Plan's bond fund; and (iv) failed to delegate their duties prudently, including failing to have a credible basis to conclude that the investment professionals responsible for carrying out their investment strategy were competent to do so successfully, and failing to appropriately monitor and supervise their performance. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches, the Plan, Plaintiff, and members of the Class suffered substantial losses in the form of higher fees and/or lower returns on their investments than they would have otherwise experienced. The Plaintiff is a participant in an ERISA defined contribution plan sponsored by her employer, Bob Evans. Bob Evans, a Delaware limited liability company, is the sponsor and administrator of the Bob Evans Plan and maintains its place of business in New Albany, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attomeyzim.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Global News reports that British Columbia's Interior Health Authority has been hit with a class-action lawsuit over a data breach in 2009 that allegedly compromised thousands of employees' personal information that ended up being sold on the dark web. The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 22, says the data breach occurred in December 2009, exposing "highly sensitive" personal information belonging to people who worked for the health authority between 2003 and 2009. Court documents say the information was accessed by "cybercriminals and other malicious actors," and the "full extent" of the hack still hasn't been disclosed by Interior Health in the 16 years since. Former employee Rae Fergus, one of the lead plaintiffs, says her personal information has been used since 2022 to fraudulently get a car loan and a credit card, and to open a bank account without her "knowledge or consent." Susan Shaw, another proposed representative plaintiff who worked for the health authority, says in the lawsuits that she only found out about the data breach last month by reading a news article, and was allegedly offered two years of free credit monitoring after contacting Interior Health about it. The lawsuit says police in Port Coquitlam, Surrey, and Vernon since 2017 have discovered documents containing Interior Health employee personal information, leading to the health authority publishing a notice online about the hack in March 2024, the "first public acknowledgment" of the breach. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 23, 2025. [GN] BSV CLAIMS: Court of Appeal Rejects Claim Over Delisting Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- COINGEEK reports that the U.K. Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal over the damages available to BSV investors over a group of exchanges' delisting of BSV, heavily reducing the potential damages available in the case. The investors -- represented by special-purpose company BSV Claims Limited -- are suing a group of exchanges (Binance, Bittylicious, Shapeshift and Kraken) over their decision to delist BSV in 2019. They allege that the delistings were coordinated between the exchanges and therefore amounted to a violation of the U.K.'s Competition Act. It's the first time that a CPO -- the U.K. equivalent of a class action lawsuit -- has been granted with respect to a digital asset claim. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) -- which gave the green-light to the lawsuit in 2024 -- was right to consider that BSV investors were obligated to mitigate their own losses by selling their coins for a suitable alternative once they became aware (or reasonably ought to have been aware) that their coins had been delisted. If so, it would mean that when the case goes to trial BSV investors would only be able to claim the difference between the value of BSV at the time of the delistings and the value of BSV at the time they should have been aware of it. The Court of Appeal dismissed the investors' appeal, agreeing with the Competition Appeal Tribunal in limiting the available damages: "Once [the BSV holders] knew of the delisting events, their investment decisions were nothing to do with the defendants. They had a duty to mitigate their losses, and they cannot recover losses that they could reasonably have mitigated. In relation to tradeable assets such as BSV, that meant selling them or retaining them, but either way their maximum loss is calculated by reference to the value they could have received for them once they knew or ought to have known of the wrongful conduct." BSV Claims Limited had argued that the question of whether BSV is a unique asset (such that there are no reasonable alternative investments by which to mitigate the investors losses) should have been left for trial. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, citing an expert economic report provided by the claimants which used BTC and BCH as comparator coins in valuing the damage inflicted on BSV's long term prospects: "BSV was obviously not a unique cryptocurrency without reasonably similar substitutes. This is, as the Tribunal said, the representative's own case, since it uses the comparators of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash to make its claims for the so-called "forgone growth effect.'" The forgone growth effect here refers to the speculated future value BSV could or would have attained if the delistings hadn't have taken place. Though the lawsuit survives this ruling (a trial date has yet to be set), it takes the eye-watering sums initially claimed by the investors from multiple billions to what is likely to be in the tens of millions of pounds -- assuming that BSV Claims does not appeal the decision further. Ruling highlights tension between old law and new technology BSV investors reading the Court of Appeals ruling will no doubt be raising their eyebrows at the comments made by the Justices as to the so-called "reasonable steps' they should have taken to mitigate their own losses. After all, what "suitable alternative' could there be when the primary investment thesis for BSV is that there is no other BSV: it's the only asset that maintains the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto as set out in the white paper. Telling a BSV investor that they should have sold up for BTC would be akin to telling someone with a contract to purchase lumber that they should have sought steel, instead. You can practically see the force of this point by quoting the original formulation of this rule, set out in Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha and quoted by the CAT: "Essentially it applies whenever there is an available market for whatever has been lost and its explanation is that the injured party should go out into that market and make a substitute contract to mitigate (and generally thereby crystallise) his loss. Market prices move, both up and down. If the injured party delays unjustifiably in re-entering the market, he does so at his own risk: future speculation is to his account." That seems perfectly sensible in the case of a normal commercial contract. If a fruit supplier has a contract with a grocer to sell a container of bananas, but the grocer rejects delivery at the last minute and refuses to pay, and then seven days after the original delivery date the entire stock rots, it's reasonable to have required the supplier to go back to the market and find an alternative contract before that point so that they can mitigate their losses. But trying to graft this formulation onto the digital asset market quickly leads you into gibberish for the reasons stated above. Digital assets are not fungible between each other -- on the contrary, they're so different that even considering them the same asset class can seem ridiculous. What reasonable alternative can there possibly be for a BSV investor who made their investment on the thesis that BSV is the only technical implementation of the original Bitcoin white paper available? If all exchanges suddenly decided to delist BSV, knocking its development off course to a degree that it may never recover despite its technical value, it hardly makes sense to insist the BSVer go out and buy BTC. Let's say the banana seller in our example had no other grocers to sell to: would it be reasonable to expect him to start making and selling banana cakes, lest he lose his entitlement to damages? Of course not. In other words, to apply the market mitigation rule to digital assets -- particularly involving those with highly specific and technical investment theses like BSV -- is hard to do without contorting the rule beyond recognition. Unfortunately, the effect of the CAT's original decision -- and the Court of Appeal's affirmation -- was to take all of this discussion off the table, forcing trial to proceed on the basis that all digital assets are similar enough for the market mitigation rule to apply. Given the novelty of this case, both as a competition case and as a collective proceeding, now allowing these questions to be fully explored at trial with evidence will be disappointing to many. Just ask yourself: if some illegal conduct drastically reduced the value of the digital asset you've most confidently invested in, would you be happy to be told that you should simply have gone out to buy BCH? A trial date for BSV Claims Limited v Bittylicious, Binance, Kraken and Shapeshift has yet to be set. More information on the case can be found on the claimant's website. [GN] CAINE & WEINER COMPANY: Waters Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caine & Weiner Company, Inc. The case is styled as Abigail Waters, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Caine & Weiner Company, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-22246-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Caine & Weiner Company, Inc. -- https://www.caine-weiner.com/ -- is a company that specializes in accounts receivable management, providing services like debt collection, credit management, and investigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-5000 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com CALCON MUTUAL: Haynes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Calvin Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Calcon Mutual Mortgage, LLC d/b/a OneTrust Home Loans a Delaware limited liability company; Case No. 2:25-cv-01820-SMM (D. Ariz., May 27, 2025), is brought on behalf of himself and other Collective Members who were not compensated for their correct overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter "FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated with a salary and bonuses. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated with a draw in the form of an hourly rate and commissions or bonuses. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated hourly plus commissions and bonuses. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members' commissions and bonuses were not factored into the calculation of their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members also worked over 40 hours, off the clock, without overtime compensation. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 hours in a given work week. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were not paid appropriate overtime for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendant or an associated company of Defendant from on March 1, 2022, to on August 29, 2023.. The Defendant is a company which conducts mortgage-related business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone & Fax: 480.442.3410 Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com Web: www.weilerlaw.com CALIFORNIA WASTE SERVICES: Pina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Waste Services, LLC. The case is styled as Manuel Pina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. California Waste Services, LLC, Case No. 25STCV14754 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." California Waste Services LLC (CWS) -- https://www.californiawasteservices.com/ -- is a full-service recycling facility and roll off dumpster rental company conveniently located in Los Angeles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Interest Rate Class Suit for $245MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Capital One has agreed to a $425 million class action lawsuit settlement. Why: Capital One was accused of concealing details of a new product from legacy savings account holders. Where: The Capital One class action settlement was filed in Virginia federal court. Capital One has agreed to pay $425 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it concealed details from legacy savings account holders when it launched a new product. The plaintiffs alleged Capital One failed to pay 360 Savings account holders the same interest rate as 360 Performance Savings account holders after the bank launched the new account on Sept. 18, 2019. They accused Capital One of concealing certain details about the new product in order to avoid paying existing customers the higher interest rate. Capital One froze its 360 Savings account interest rate at 0.3% in 2022 but increased the 360 Performance Savings account interest rate to as high as 4.35%, the plaintiffs alleged. The plaintiffs further argued that the disparity in returns between the two account products grew in earnest in 2022, when the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates. Capital One recently closed a $35.3 billion acquisition of Discover, making it the nation's largest credit card issuer and eighth-largest bank. Capital One denies any wrongdoing Capital One denies any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $425 million to resolve the claims, including $300 million in pro rata payments to class members based on the amount of interest they would have earned if their 360 Savings account had paid the same interest rate as 360 Performance Savings accounts. The remaining $125 million will represent additional interest payments to the roughly 75% of class members who continue to hold the legacy savings account product. As part of the settlement, Capital One must maintain an interest rate on its 360 Savings accounts that is double the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's calculation of the national average for savings deposit accounts. A judge must sign off on the agreement for it to take effect. The formal settlement agreement will be filed by June 6, along with the plaintiffs' motion seeking preliminary approval. Capital One is currently facing another lawsuit claiming it left thousands of customers unable to access their bank accounts, process payments or receive direct deposits for multiple days in January. The plaintiffs are represented by Chet B. Waldman, Carl L. Stine, Philip M. Black, Matthew Insley-Pruitt and Timothy D. Brennan of Wolf Popper LLP and Matthew B. Kaplan of The Kaplan Law Firm. The Capital One savings account class action settlement is In re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation, Case No. 1:24-md-03111-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. [GN] CASINO LLC: Rodriguez-Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CASINO, LLC. The case is styled as Jonathan Rodriguez-Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CASINO, LLC, Case No. 25STCV14641 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CENCORA INC: Gets Final OK of Opioid Class Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Cencora, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quartetly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has obtained final court approval of the settlement agreement to resolve the opioid-related claims of a proposed settlement class of hospitals. A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as numerous states and tribes, filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and certain subsidiaries, such as AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC") and H.D. Smith, LLC ("H.D. Smith")), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Starting in December 2017, more than 2,000 cases were transferred to Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "MDL Court"). Since then, several cases filed by government and tribal plaintiffs that were selected as bellwether cases in the MDL have been resolved through trial or settlement. Following trial in two consolidated cases in West Virginia federal court, the court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, including the Company. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the court’s decision on August 2, 2022, which remains pending. On July 21, 2021, the Company announced that it and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors had negotiated a Distributor Settlement Agreement that, if all conditions were satisfied, would result in the resolution of a substantial majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. The Distributor Settlement Agreement became effective on April 2, 2022, and as of March 31, 2025, it included 48 of 49 eligible states (the "Settling States") as well as 99% by population of the eligible political subdivisions in the Settling States. The Distributor Settlement Agreement requires the Company to comply with certain requirements, including the establishment of a clearinghouse that will consolidate data from all three national pharmaceutical distributors. The States of Alabama and West Virginia and their subdivisions and Native American tribes are not a part of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, and the Company has reached separate agreements with those groups. In Maryland, a trial commenced on September 16, 2024 in a case filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. On November 12, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding ABDC (and another national distributor) liable for public nuisance and assessing approximately $274 million total in compensatory damages, approximately $74 million of which was assessed against ABDC. A second phase of the trial began on December 11, 2024 related to the City of Baltimore's request for an abatement remedy and proceeded as a bench trial. The Court has not yet issued its ruling from the abatement phase. While the judgment is not yet final, the Company is evaluating next steps, including a possible appeal. The $74 million is a component of the Company's $4.7 billion litigation liability as of March 31, 2025 as described below. The MDL Court selected four cases filed by third-party payors to serve as additional litigation bellwethers. On May 31, 2024, the MDL Court severed and stayed these four cases against the Company and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors, pursuant to ongoing settlement discussions to resolve litigation filed by a putative class of third-party payors. On August 29, 2024, the Company and two other national pharmaceutical distributors entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement to resolve the opioid-related claims of a proposed settlement class of third-party payors. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company recorded a $93.0 million litigation expense accrual in its fiscal 2024 Consolidated Statement of Operations. The MDL Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement on September 3, 2024. Following a time period for submission of any objections or requests to be excluded from the settlement, the MDL granted final approval of the settlement during a fairness hearing held on January 13, 2025 and entered a final approval order on January 15, 2025. On February 13, 2025, the sole objector to the settlement filed a notice of appeal of the final approval order. That appeal remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On September 26, 2024, the Company and two other national pharmaceutical distributors entered into a proposed class action settlement agreement to resolve the opioid-related claims of a proposed settlement class of hospitals. The Company recorded a $120.9 million litigation expense accrual in its fiscal 2024 Consolidated Statement of Operations, representing the Company's expected share of the potential class action settlement. Pursuant to these settlement discussions, a case in Alabama that involved up to eight plaintiff hospitals, and that was scheduled to begin trial on July 8, 2024, was severed and stayed as to the Company. On October 30, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. Following notice to class members, a time period for submission of any objections to the settlement or requests to be excluded from the settlement, and a fairness hearing on March 4, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered a final approval order. The settlement became effective on April 4, 2025. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LA: Quintanilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Hospital Los Angeles. The case is styled as Tracey Quintanilla, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Case No. 25STCV14636 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Children's Hospital Los Angeles -- https://www.chla.org/ -- is a nationally ranked, freestanding acute care children's hospital in the East Hollywood district of Los Angeles, on Sunset Boulevard at the corner of Vermont Avenue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com CLASSIC COLLISION: Molina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Collision, LLC. The case is styled as John C. Molina, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Classic Collision, LLC, Case No. 25STCV15451 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Classic Collision -- https://classiccollision.com/ -- operates a chain of car collision centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com COAST 2 COAST: Rennaker Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM R. RENNAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COAST 2 COAST LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00234 (W.D. Tex., May 19, 2025) seeks to recover back wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Coast 2 Coast allegedly violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed. Mr. Rennaker is an individual who resides in Killeen, Texas and who was employed by Defendant in 2024 Coast 2 Coast provides frac sand hauling services [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net COINBASE GLOBAL: Bender Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bender, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. AND COINBASE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04148 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025), is brought arising from Coinbase's failure to protect the sensitive personal information of millions of users, including current and former customers. Despite collecting and storing extensive personal and financial data as part of its cryptocurrency services, Coinbase failed to implement and maintain reasonable security safeguards, thereby exposing users to serious and ongoing risks. On May 15, 2025, Coinbase publicly disclosed in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Form 8-K) that it had been contacted by a malicious actor who claimed to have obtained a wide array of confidential user information. According to the threat actor's communication on May 11, 2025, the stolen data included names, physical and email addresses, phone numbers, partial Social Security numbers, account login credentials, banking information, copies of government-issued identification, and records of user activity on the platform ("Private Information" or "PII"). This breach was not the result of a sophisticated or unforeseeable attack, but rather a consequence of Coinbase's grossly inadequate security posture. On information and belief, the company's systems lacked real-time monitoring and failed to detect the intrusion for days. The company's response was delayed and insufficient, compounding the damage and leaving victims vulnerable to identity theft, financial fraud, and unauthorized access to their accounts. As a result of Coinbase's failures, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all individuals whose personal information was compromised. Plaintiff seeks relief including compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring improved data security measures, and disgorgement of profits obtained through Coinbase's negligent and unlawful practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Coinbase and has been since 2013. Coinbase Global, Inc. is a publicly traded holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: 201-391-7000 Facsimile: 201-307-1086 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Nessler Suit Over $19.85 Common Stock Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRADY NESSLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., BRIAN ARMSTRONG, and ALESIA J. HAAS, Case No. 2:25-cv-02637-JHS (E.D. Pa., May 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Coinbase securities between April 14, 2021, and May 14, 2025, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, the Company is liable for the acts of the Individual Defendants and its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior and common law principles of agency because all of the wrongful acts complained of herein were carried out within the scope of their employment. On May 15, 2025, Coinbase made a statement regarding the hack, including that cybercriminals had successfully bribed Coinbase customer service agents who reside outside the United States to hand over sensitive personal data on Coinbase customers, such as names, dates of birth and partial social security numbers. And that the criminals have demanded $20 million in exchange for the return of the information, but that Coinbase has refused to pay the ransom. On this news, the price of Coinbase's common stock fell by $19.85 per share, or 7.2%, to close at $244 on May 15, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Throughout the Class Period, the Company's securities were actively traded on the NASDAQ. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only through appropriate discovery, the Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands of members in the proposed Class. The scienter of the Individual Defendants and other employees and agents of the Company is similarly imputed to the Company under respondeat superior and agency principles. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. is an American cryptocurrency exchange.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. Candace N. Smith, Esq. Jones, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com pjones@hermanjones.com cjones@hermanjones.com COINBASE INC: Scheuber Sues Over Failure to Protect Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Scheuber, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE, INC. AND COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04151 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2025), is brought on behalf of consumers that have been, and continue to be, harmed as a result of Coinbase's failure to properly secure and safeguard Coinbase users' highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"). The personally identifiable information included, 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) (collectively, "PII"); and for their failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. Despite their duties to safeguard individuals' PII, on May 11, 2025, Coinbase became aware of a cybersecurity incident as Coinbase received an email communication through Coinbase, Inc., a subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc. The email was 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 (the "Data Breach" or "Breach") As a direct and proximate result of Coinbase's negligent failure to implement reasonable data security measures, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII--names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, Social Security numbers, bank-account numbers and 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)—was exfiltrated and is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their PII--risks which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Coinbase and has been since 2013. Coinbase is a cryptocurrency platform and exchange that allows people and institutions to engage with crypto assets, including trading, staking, safekeeping, spending, and fast, free global transfers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-223-6444 Fax: 212-223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com COMPLETE PAYROLL: Connors Sues Over Failures to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Connors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPLETE PAYROLL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-11281-LTS (D. Mass., May 9, 2025), is brought arising out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("Private Information"). The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that, upon information and belief, contained the Private Information of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the Class"). The Defendant admits Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was unlawfully accessed and stolen in the Data Breach that Defendant discovered on March 10, 2024. The Private Information stolen in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social Security numbers. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have been injured by Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of their confidential Private Information. The Defendant provides HR, payroll and employee benefits to its clients' employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 4131 North Central Expressway, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com CONCENTRA GROUP: Continues to Defend Security Breach Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- During the first quarter of 2024, Concentra Group Holdings Parent, Inc., became aware of six putative class action lawsuits filed against Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., and Concentra related to the November 10, 2023, data breach. Five of the putative class action lawsuits have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and consolidated with the one class action lawsuit pending there. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on August 19, 2024 against PJ&A, Concentra, Select Medical Holdings Corporation and other unrelated defendants under the caption In re Perry Johnson & Associates Medical Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages under theories of negligence, breach of contract, and failure to comply with statutory duties, including duties under HIPAA, FTC guidelines and industry standards, and various state consumer protection and deceptive trade practice laws. In March 2025, pursuant to a Case Management Order, five of the named plaintiffs in the Consolidated Complaint filed an amended Direct-Filed Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Pursuant to this Court Order, the Direct-Filed Class Action Complaint will be remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas after the conclusion of pretrial proceedings. The Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is working with its cybersecurity risk insurance policy carrier and does not believe that the data breach or the lawsuits will have a material impact on its operations or financial performance. However, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the timing and outcome of these matters. CONSUMER CELLULAR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 3, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chet Michael Wilson, v. Consumer Cellular Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-00745-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn O. Silver entered a Rule 16 Scheduling Order: Procedural motions including Motions to Amend the Complaint or Answer, and Motions to Join Additional Parties shall be filed no later than July 31, 2025. All discovery, including answers to interrogatories, production of documents, depositions and requests to admit shall be completed by March 13, 2026. The parties shall finally supplement all discovery, including material changes in expert witness opinions and material disclosures, pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3), of all exhibits to be used and all witnesses to be called at trial, on or before March 13, 2026. The Briefing Schedule for Class Certification is as follows: Motion for Class Certification: April 3, 2026 Response to Motion for Class Certification: May 8, 2026 Reply to Class Certification: May 29, 2026 An Interim Rule 16 Status Conference is scheduled for Aug. 19, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. As these deadlines have been agreed upon by the parties, it is ordered the Rule 16 Case Management Conference set on May 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., is vacated. Consumer Cellular provides cellular phones and services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9yNh9g at no extra charge.[CC] CS DISCO: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- CS Disco Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the securities class suit pending in the Southern District of New York. On September 19, 2023, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that we made materially false or misleading statements about the factors that were driving the Company's revenue growth between July 21, 2021 and August 11, 2022. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 12, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On January 8, 2024, the Court transferred the case to the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas. On March 8, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 12, 2024. On January 30, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On February 27, 2025, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's order denying in part our motion to dismiss, which was denied on April 9, 2025. CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Class Status Conference Set for June 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newbern v. Customized Distribution Services, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-03871 (S.D. Ill., Filed Dec 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Reona J. Daly entered an order setting status conference for June 2, 2025, at 9:30 AM via telephone conference. To join the conference call, counsel should call 571-353-2301. The access code is 090647147. The purpose of the status conference is to discuss the parties' request to stay all case deadlines. The parties are informed that they are free to agree between themselves for extensions of time on most of the Scheduling Order deadlines; however, any extension of time for Plaintiff's deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification (currently set for November 21, 2025) requires Court approval. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Diversity Citizenship). The Defendant operates as a third party logistics company.[CC] DAIOHS U.S.A. INC: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAIOHS U.S.A., INC., et al. The case is styled as Ernesto Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and the general public v. DAIOHS U.S.A., INC., Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV011200 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Daiohs USA -- https://firstchoiceservices.com/daiohs-usa/ -- provides seamless service for our customers, from the point of sale to the point of delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Alan Bartz, Esq. BARTZ LAW GROUP, APC 5151 California Ave., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92617-3205 Phone: 949-504-4413 Email: aaron@bartzlawgroup.com DANONE NORTH: Faces Saucedo Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SAUCEDO, individually, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV13996 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2025) is an action brought against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Danone North America has had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; (3) failing to pay minimum wage; (4) failing to pay wages due upon termination; (5) failing to permit compliant meal breaks; (6) failing to provide rest breaks; (7) failing to reimburse for required business expenses; (8) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Quality Assurance-Technician-Quality Control, in Chatsworth California, until May 31, 2024. Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation is a food and beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 S. Kenwood St. Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com DETOX MARKET: Faces Henry Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. The Detox Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05076 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.thedetoxmarket.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate landmark structure, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Thedetoxmarket.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Detox Market's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Detox Market, Inc. operates the website that provides skincare products, including cleansers, toners, serums, moisturizers, masks, exfoliators, sunscreens, hair care treatments, shampoos, conditioners, face and body oils, lotions, wellness supplements, candles, fragrances, and wellness tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Ullom Suit Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK ULLOM, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DIGIMARC CORPORATION, RILEY MCCORMACK, and CHARLES BECK, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00779-JR (D. Ore., May 8, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Digimarc securities between May 3, 2024 and February 26, 2025, inclusive, asserting claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After markets closed on February 26, 2025, Digimarc announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and the full year of 2024. The company reported a 10% drop in quarterly subscription revenue, down to $5.0 million from $5.6 million the previous year, and a decrease in annual recurring revenue to $20.0 million from $22.23 million the prior year. These declines "primarily reflect[ed] a $5.8 million decrease in ARR due to the expiration of a commercial contract in June 2024." On this news, Digimarc's stock price fell $11.65, or 43.1%, to close at $15.39 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period and prior to that revelation, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that a large commercial partner would not renew a large contract on the same terms; (2) that, as a result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large commercial contract; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would be adversely affected; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. 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, says the suit. Digimarc Corp. provides digital watermarking technology services for identifying and authenticating of physical and digital goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Cody Berne, Esq. Lydia Anderson-Dana, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com cberne@stollberne.com landersondana@stollberne.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Adam L. Rosen, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (213) 519-5876 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com andrew@schallfirm.com adam@schallfirm.com DIRECT TRAVEL: Toolsie Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Winston Toolsie, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. DIRECT TRAVEL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV122876 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 9, 2025), is brought 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. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and other Class Members for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages. Class Members were not paid for all hours worked due to the Defendants' mandated off-the clock work policies and practices. the Plaintiff and other Class Members consistently worked shifts of more than 5 hours, entitling them to at least one meal period. However, at times, Class Members were unable to take timely, off duty, thirty-minute, uninterrupted meal periods due to the nature and constraints of their job duties and/or commentary from supervisors pressuring them to take non-compliant meal periods or skip meal periods completely. The Defendants did not properly authorize and permit the Plaintiff and other Class Members to take legally compliant rest periods at a rate of every 4 hours worked or major fraction thereof, that insofar as practicable, were in the middle of the work period, as required by law. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other Class Members with accurate wage statements that complied with Labor Code section 226. As the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and Class Members with meal and rest periods that complied with Labor section 226.7, the wage statements The Defendants issued to the Plaintiff and Class Members failed and continue to fail to correctly set forth the gross wages earned, the total hours worked, the net wages earned, and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee with a job title of corporate travel advisor or a similar title/job position, from October 2024, through December 2024. The Defendants own, operate, manage and/or staff its employees to work at the offices, home/remote offices, facilities and/or other locations in California, including but not limited to, in Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and San Bernardino County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medley Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEDLEY et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00724 (D.D.C., Filed March 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amir H .Ali entered an order granting motion for extension of time to set/reset deadlines the plaintiff's consent motion for an extension of time to move for class certification. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by Sept. 8, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] DOMINGUEZ & SONS TRUCKING: Esparza Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jose Urial Chavez Esparza, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOMINGUEZ & SONS TRUCKING, INC., a California corporation; GENARO DOMINGUEZ, an individual; GINA M. DOMINGUEZ, an individual, ANGELA J. DOMINGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV450011 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-04231. The Plaintiff brought his Complaint on his own and on behalf of a purported class consisting of Defendants' current and former employee asserting alleged violations of California's Labor and Business and Professions Code for: failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal breaks, failure to provide laful [sic] rest breaks, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to indemnify, and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vincent R. Fisher, Esq. Zalman A. Robles, Esq. Eleno Nunez Gonzalez, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.578.6900 Fax: 415.578.6910 Email: VFisher@ohaganmeyer.com ZRobles@ohaganmeyer.com EGonzalez@ohaganmeyer.com DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. ("Local 103") against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. and certain of its executives. The Action, which is captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y.) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify common stock between November 10, 2023, and February 27, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). DoubleVerify administers a software platform for digital media measurement and related services. The Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that: (a) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on Activation Services, the Company's high-margin advertising optimization services segment, was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company's profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. The truth about this fraud was revealed through a series of disclosures culminating in February 2025 and March 2025. In February 2025, DoubleVerify reported disappointing earnings and disclosed a multiyear deceleration trend due to the suspension of DoubleVerify services by a large customer. On this news, the price of DoubleVerify stock fell 36 percent. Then, in March 2025, market research company Adalytics Research released a report claiming that DoubleVerify's web advertisement verification and fraud protection services are ineffective, and that DoubleVerify customers are regularly billed for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms. If you purchased or acquired DoubleVerify common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than July 21, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Connor C. Boehme, Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780, or via email at cboehme@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the Complaint online here. Local 103 is represented by Labaton, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $4.5 trillion. Labaton's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than ninety full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton is available at labaton.com. Contacts Connor Boehme, Esq. Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP (212) 907-0780 cboehme@labaton.com [GN] DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: DV) common stock between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025. DoubleVerify operates a software platform for digital media measurement and advertising optimization services. 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 DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (DV) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (a) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on its Activation Services was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company's profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; and (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities. The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed on February 27, 2025, when DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending and the suspension of DoubleVerify services by a large customer. Defendants also disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting the Company. On this news, DoubleVerify's stock price dropped $7.83 per share, or 36%, from a closing price of $21.73 on February 27, 2025, to a closing price of $13.90 on February 28, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against DoubleVerify Holdings, 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 DoubleVerify Holdings, 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] DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over 36% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOUBLEVERIFY HOLDINGS, INC., MARK ZAGORSKI, and NICOLA ALLAIS, Case No. 1:25-cv-04332 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify common stock between November 10, 2023, and February 27, 2025, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accordingly, the Company's Measurement Services provide advertisers with data on metrics such as viewability, fraud detection, brand safety, and suitability to help them verify whether their digital ads are viewed in a fraud-free, brand-suitable environment. DoubleVerify has since expanded its core offerings to include advertising optimization services, with a focus on using artificial intelligence (AI) to drive desired digital ad placement outcomes for global brands ("Activation Services"). DoubleVerify's Activation Services have traditionally been geared toward ads purchased through programmatic auctions on open ad exchanges. The Activation Services that DoubleVerify provides to advertisers in connection with open ad exchanges are priced at a premium and generate substantially higher profit margins for DoubleVerify than its Measurement Services. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; Investors began to learn the truth about this fraud on February 28, 2024, when DoubleVerify issued lower revenue growth expectations for the first quarter of 2024 due to "a slow start by brand advertisers and a slow ramp by recently signed new large customers." On this news, DoubleVerify's stock price dropped $11.79 per share, or 38.6 percent to a closing price of $18.78 on May 8, 2024. 8. Then, on February 27, 2025, when DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending. The Defendants also disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting the Company. On this news, DoubleVerify's stock price fell approximately 36 percent to close at $13.90 on February 28, 2025. Finally, On March 28, 2025, market research company Adalytics Research, LLC released a report claiming that DoubleVerify's web advertisement verification and fraud protection services are ineffective, and that DoubleVerify customers are regularly billed for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms. On the same day, The Wall Street Journal reported that DoubleVerify regularly misses detection of nonhuman traffic in contradiction to the Company's claims that it helps brands avoid serving ads to nonhuman bot accounts. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant declines in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelations of the fraud, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify common stock during the Class Period and was damaged as a result of the Defendants' wrongdoing alleged in this complaint. DoubleVerify operates a software platform for digital media measurement and advertising optimization services. Founded in 2008, DoubleVerify began with a focus on measuring the quality and performance of digital ads after they are purchased and deployed by advertisers (Measurement Services).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com DRINK LMNT: Drink Mix Contains Maltodextrin, Vaughn Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LISA VAUGHN, BARBARA SCOLARO, JORDAN JAROSKY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DRINK LMNT, INC., dba LMNT, Case No. 2:25-cv-00052-JTJ (D. Mont., May 23, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated purchasers of flavored electrolyte drink mix, challenging the conduct of LMNT in the advertising, marketing, and sale of its Products, which are developed, manufactured, marketed and sold for consumption to the general public. Specifically, the use of the phrases, currently and in the past, including "All Natural Ingredients", "No Artificial Ingredients”, "No Dodgy Ingredients", "Vegan Friendly", and "Paleo-Keto Friendly" on advertisements and the label of the Products, leads reasonable consumers to believe that the Products contain no unlisted ingredients, especially artificial fillers. However, these practices are false and misleading because the Products contain maltodextrin, a highly processed and synthetic ingredient, which is both a preservative and a flavoring agent. Maltodextrin is not listed on the LMNT flavored electrolyte drink mix ingredients listed on the packaging, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members have reasonably relied on Defendant's deceptive labeling and advertising of the Products, reasonably believing that the Products do not contain artificial fillers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK, PLLC 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 Facsimile: (406) 839-9092 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com ELANCO ANIMAL: Appeal in "Hunter" Remains Pending in 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Hunter) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Elanco and certain executives. On September 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals. The lawsuit alleged, 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 supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections. The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30, 2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. On January 13, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On December 7, 2022, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, and on September 27, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave, issuing final judgment in favor of Elanco. On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend its position, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ELEVANCE HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Elevance Health, Inc. ("Elevance" or "the Company") (NYSE: ELV) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Elevance securities between April 18, 2024 and October 16, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/ELV. Case Details The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, with the Medicaid redetermination process nearly complete, Defendants represented to investors that they were closely monitoring cost trends associated with the redetermination process and that the premium rates Elevance was negotiating with states were sufficient to address the risk and cost profiles of those patients staying on Medicaid programs. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that while Defendants acknowledged that Medicaid expenses were rising, they repeatedly assured investors that this was adequately reflected in the Company's guidance for the year, and that these representations were materially false or misleading. Finally, the Complaint adds that in truth, the redeterminations were causing the acuity and utilization of Elevance's Medicaid members to rise significantly, as the members being removed from Medicaid programs were, on average, healthier than those who remained eligible for the programs, and that this shift was occurring to a degree that was not reflected in Elevance's rate negotiations with the states or in its financial guidance for 2024. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/ELV. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Elevance you have until July 11, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller (332) 239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, 401(k) Plan Member Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY HENDRICKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELEVANCE HEALTH INC.; RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; SEAN GRAY; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:25-cv-01002-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., May 22, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), against the Elevance Health 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries, which include Elevance Health Inc., ATH Holding Company, LLC, the Retirement Committee of ATH Holding Company and its, members during the Class Period2, and the individuals serving as "Plan Administrator" during the Class Period, including but not limited to Sean Gray, for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan breached the duties they owed to the Plan and its participants including Plaintiff. Specifically, the Defendants' failure stems from the use of Plan participant forfeited funds to reduce Company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for Plan administrative expenses and costs. The Plaintiff brings this action as a nationwide class action to recover damages suffered due to the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. Specifically, Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons composed of: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time during the Class Period." ELEVANCE HEALTH INC. is an American for-profit health insurance provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. CH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412)231-0246 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com anasuya@lcllp.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Aug. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC., STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Documents Relates To: ALL ACTIONS Master Case No.: 8:21-cv-01595-DLB (Consolidated with No. 8:21-cv-02079-DLB) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS EXHIBIT D TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HOLD EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC. COMMON STOCK AS OF FEBRUARY 24, 2025. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTIONS. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that this Summary Notice relates to a proposed settlement of the following derivative actions: In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Stockholder Deriv. Litig.,Lead Case No. 8:21-cv-01595-DLB, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2021-0974-MTZ, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery; Elton v. Kramer, et al., Case No. C-15-CV-21-000496, pending in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Montgomery County; In Re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Demand Refused Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 8:23-cv-02969-DLB, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; and Andrews v. Kramer, C.A. No. 2024-0925-MTZ, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, you shall be forever barred from contesting the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and from pursuing the Released Plaintiffs' Claims. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are set out in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered into on February 24, 2025. A more detailed description of the Derivative Actions and the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation as well as the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Actions, both of which are publicly available for review on the "Investor Relations" page of Emergent's corporate website, at http://investors.emergentbiosolutions.com. All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and/or Long-Form Notice. In summary, the Settlement provides for the release of Released Claims, subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation, in consideration for: (i) payment of the sum of $15,000,000 to Emergent from the proceeds of certain insurance policies specified in the Stipulation; and (ii) Emergent's agreement to adopt, implement, and maintain certain corporate governance measures specified in Exhibit A of the Stipulation, including, among other measures: (1) enhancements to the structure and functions of the Emergent Board of Director's Quality, Compliance, Manufacturing and Risk Management Committee designed to strengthen oversight of legal-regulatory compliance, particularly with respect to manufacturing operations, and correlative enhancements to management- and facilities-level monitoring and reporting functions; (2) enhancements to the Board's Compensation Committee functions, including administration of a strengthened Compensation Recovery Policy and related disclosures, and development and administration of executive compensation policies tying executive and employee incentive compensation to performance on specified compliance and quality control metrics; (3) enhanced rules for reporting and escalation of material incidents or patterns of material incidents at Emergent manufacturing facilities to the Board; (4) enhanced annual disclosure of material compliance or regulatory issues; (5) enhanced risk assessment and response training for directors, officers, employees, and contractors; and (6) enhanced standards and supervision of Rule 10b-5-1 trading plans. The entire consideration for the Settlement and all material terms and conditions of the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation and Exhibits thereto. A hearing will be held on August 6, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., in person at United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Suite 445, Greenbelt, MD 20770, to consider whether the Judgment, substantially in the form of Exhibit E to the Stipulation, should be entered: (i) finally approving the terms of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Emergent and Emergent's stockholders; (ii) dismissing with prejudice Released Plaintiffs' Claims against Released Defendants' Persons pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation; and (iii) ruling upon Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel and service awards to Plaintiffs. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the docket of the Court. If you owned Emergent common stock as of February 24, 2025 and continue to hold such common stock as of the date of the Settlement Hearing, you may, if you wish, appear at the Settlement Hearing to show cause why the proposed Settlement, Judgment, and Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel and service awards to Plaintiffs should not be approved and entered. Any such objections must be filed with the Court and served on Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Emergent no later than July 16, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice. PLEASE NOTE: Because the Settlement involves the resolution of stockholder derivative actions, which were brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, the benefits from the Settlement will go to Emergent. Current Emergent Stockholders will not receive any direct payment as a result of the Settlement. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT. STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS SUMMARY NOTICE. Questions regarding this Summary Notice, the Derivative Actions, and the Settlement should be made to the following counsel for Federal Demand Futility Plaintiffs: Brian J. Robbins Craig W. Smith Shane P. Sanders ROBBINS LLP 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsllp.com csmith@robbinsllp.com ssanders@robbinsllp.com EQUITYEXPERTS: North Carolina Homeowners Gain Ground in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Kimberli Lewis' motion for leave to file an amended complaint and defendant EquityExperts.org, LLC's motion for reconsideration in the case captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-CV-302-FL (E.D.N.C.). The court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint with modified class definitions, saying class definitions must include a 90-day payment period. The court denied other aspects of the motions. Lewis is suing EquityExperts.org for improper debt collection practices related to delinquent homeowners association (HOA) dues. Plaintiff originally commenced this consumer protection action in Wake County Superior Court, April 14, 2022. Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (NCCAA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 58-70 et seq., and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-50 et seq. Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a class; actual, statutory, and trebled damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant filed a notice of removal August 4, 2022, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On May 31, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiff's FDCPA, NCCAA, NCDCA claims, and class allegations to proceed. Plaintiff filed her motion to certify class August 8, 2024, proposing certification of the following three classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): (1) Notice of Lien Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Lien delivered to Plaintiff. (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose delivered to Plaintiff. (3) Unconscionable Collection Fee Class: All North Carolina homeowners that were charged more than $1,200 in collection fees by EquityExperts during the respective statute of limitations period. On January 6, 2025, the court certified two classes, modifying definitions to include only those who made payments to defendant, denying certification of the Unconscionable Collection Fee Class. Plaintiff moved to amend her complaint on December 10, 2024, relying upon a proposed amended complaint and a redline showing proposed changes. Before this motion ripened, the court entered its order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In particular, the court certified the following two classes: (1) Notice of Lien Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Lien delivered to Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter. (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose delivered to Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter. Defendant moved for reconsideration of the class certification order, arguing the court's sua sponte class definitions were erroneous and that plaintiff failed to meet numerosity and predominance requirements. According to the court, plaintiff has demonstrated diligence in moving to amend under the circumstances of this case. At the point of the deadline to amend pleadings, on November 16, 2023, plaintiff had not yet received the completed subpoena production from defendant's lien counsel. "[T]he subpoena production was on a rolling basis and not obtained until December 19, 2023, with most of the production (for all NC HOAs) not produced until April 1, 2024." The court held, "Multiple factors thus contribute to the court’s determination that plaintiff demonstrated sufficient diligence to modify the scheduling order deadline for motions to amend." The court also found no undue prejudice, bad faith, or futility, stating, "In sum, where plaintiff has met the good cause standard of Rule 16, and the standard for 'freely' giving leave to amend under Rule 15, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is granted in part on the terms set forth herein. The motion is denied only in that limited part where the proposed amended complaint includes plaintiffs' original class definitions." The court rejected defendant's challenge to sua sponte class modifications but agreed that imposing a more definite time period than "thereafter" in the class definition is necessary. "Adopting a middle-ground time period of 90 days, for class definition purposes, maintains the benefit of a definite time period giving rise to a plausible inference of causation," the court said. The modified definitions are: "(1) Notice of Lien Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Lien from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Lien delivered to Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter. (2) Notice of Intent to Foreclose Class: All North Carolina homeowners, during the respective statute of limitations period, that received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose from EquityExperts substantially identical to the Notice of Intent to Foreclose delivered to Plaintiff, and made a payment to EquityExperts within 90 days thereafter." On numerosity, the court found plaintiff met her burden, stating, "In sum, to resolve that part of defendant's instant motion challenging numerosity, the court determines that the total number of class members will fall somewhere between the numbers identified by defendant and those identified by plaintiff. . . . Neither the numbers identified by defendant, nor the more probable increased numbers based upon the court's calculations herein, defeat class certification on the basis of numerosity." For predominance, the court reaffirmed common contentions, noting that a common contention for each class member is that the "form notice of lien sent to them 'intentionally misrepresents that a lien has been filed when in reality a lien has not been filed.'" A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=66cXhv from PacerMonitor.com. EVENFLO CO: Agrees to $3.5MMM Booster Seat Safety Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Evenflo agreed to a $3.5 million settlement to resolve claims that its "Big Kid" booster seats were not as safe or thoroughly tested as promised in product advertising. The Evenflo settlement benefits consumers who purchased an Evenflo "Big Kid" booster seat between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Evenflo used false advertising to mislead consumers into purchasing its "Big Kid" booster seats. Evenflo allegedly advertised these booster seats as "side impact tested" and safe for children weighing at least 30 pounds. Evenflo is a car seat, stroller and baby essentials retailer. Evenflo has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve the booster seat safety class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Evenflo settlement, consumers can claim up to two eligible booster seats and receive a cash payment or an Evenflo credit. Settlement payments will vary, with each claimant receiving a pro rata share of the settlement fund for each claimed booster seat. No payment estimates are available at this time. Class members who choose to receive an Evenflo credit instead of a pro rata payment will receive a $25 credit that can be used to purchase Evenflo products directly from the brand's website. In addition to providing monetary benefits in the forms of payments and credits, Evenflo agreed to provide more information regarding minimum weight requirements for its "Big Kid" seats and the testing performed on these seats. Evenflo will also conform to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations regarding child weight recommendations and post an education video to inform consumers on how to safely transition a child between car seats and booster seats. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 10, 2025. The final approval hearing for the booster seat safety class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Feb. 25, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 24, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased an Evenflo "Big Kid" booster seat between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2022. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Purchase receipt, invoice, credit card statement, purchase information or product photo 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 11/24/2025 Case Name In re: Evenflo Co. Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 20-md-2938-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 02/25/2026 Settlement Website BigKidBoosterSettlement.com Claims Administrator Evenflo Marketing Litigation Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2300 Portland, OR 97208-2300 info@BigKidBoosterSettlement.com (888) 864-3151 Class Counsel Steve W. Berman HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Mark P. Chalos LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Martha A. Geer MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Tristan Duncan Daniel Rogers SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP [GN] EXELON CORP: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for July 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Simpluris, Inc., Fund Administrator for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a statement regarding the Exelon Corporation Fair Fund and Plan of Distribution: NOTICE OF FAIR FUND DISTRIBUTION PLAN In the Matter of Exelon Corporation Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21761 For more information, visit www.ExelonFairFund.com The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has settled administrative proceedings against Exelon Corporation and and its subsidiary Commonwealth Edison Company. In the Order, the SEC found violations of the antifraud, books and records, and internal accounting control provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. The violations occurred around 2011 through around 2019, and involved a scheme to corruptly influence and reward Michael Madigan, the then-Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives for his assistance in regard to legislation affecting ComEd's business. The scheme involved ComEd arranging for various Madigan associates to obtain jobs, vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments associated with those jobs and vendor subcontracts, for the benefit of Madigan and his associates, with the intent to influence and reward Madigan. The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay $46,200,000 in civil money penalty to the Commission. The SEC also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so that the penalty collected can be distributed to harmed investors. The Fair Fund will be paid out according to the Plan of Distribution. A summary of the eligibility criteria and claims process is below. Full details are available at www.ExelonFairFund.com. You may also request a copy of the Plan from the Fund Administrator via email at info@ExelonFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2445. Who is eligible to receive a payment from the Fair Fund? To receive a payment, you must have: (1) purchased Exelon common stock between December 1, 2016, AND October 30, 2019; (2) approved transactions that calculate to at least $10.00 of Recognized Loss under the Plan; (3) not been an Excluded Party under the Plan; (4) submitted a valid Claim Form. How do I submit a Claim? The easiest way to submit a claim is online at the Exelon Corporation Fair Fund website: www.ExelonFairFund.com. Claim Forms completed online must be submitted on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on July 6, 2025. If you are unable to submit a Claim Form online, you may request a copy of the paper Claim Form from the Fund Administrator via email at info@ExelonFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2445. You may also download a copy of the Claim Form to print from: www.ExelonFairFund.com. Claim Forms submitted via mail must be sent to the address provided on the Claim Form and postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, then received) by July 6, 2025. The Fund Administrator will send a Determination Notice advising each Eligible Claimant who timely submitted a Claim Form of their eligibility determination and will provide a calculation of the claimant's Recognized Loss. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of an Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if timely submitted in accordance with the Plan. This notice is a summary. For more information, visit www.ExelonFairFund.com FASTLY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Fastly Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the securities class actions in the Northern District of California. On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03170), naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and lead counsel. On November 1, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors. On June 12, 2024, certain of the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in a stockholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Roy v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 3:24-cv-03549-JCS). On July 1, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint was also filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the same court, captioned Steffens v. Nightingale et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-03984-DMR). The derivative complaints are based on substantially similar allegations as those in the securities class action. The derivative complaints assert that defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, as well as claims of unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On September 17, 2024, the court consolidated and stayed the derivative actions until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On August 23, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Mark Sweitzer v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 1:24-cv-00969-GBW) (the "Sweitzer Action"). On September 26, 2024, the court stayed the Sweitzer Action until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On December 20, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Bushansky v. Nightingale, et al. (Case No. 2024-1322) (the "Bushansky Action"). On January 8, 2025, the court stayed the Bushansky Action until after resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and its officers and directors. FOGO DE CHAO: Faces Reis Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIZ CARLOS D. REIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOGO DE CHAO (HOLDINGS) INC., FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HOLDINGS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (LONG ISLAND) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO 53RD STREET, NEW YORK LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (WHITE PLAINS) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ELMHURST) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (HUNTINGTON STATION) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (NYWTC) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (BROOKLYN) LLC, and ABC CORPORATIONS #1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02574 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Minimum Wage Act incorporated in the New York Labor Law, and the Hospitality Industry Wage Order, arising from Defendants willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies concerning the payment of wages to Mr. Reis and other employees of Defendants' New York restaurants. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws by failing to pay minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation, and failing to provide adequate wage notices and statements. Plaintiff Reis was employed by Defendants as a "Gaucho" since June 2023 through his unlawful termination in January 2025 at the Elmhurst Fogo de Chao in New York. The Plaintiff further brings this action against Defendants and on behalf of himself only, for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights, for willful, malicious, and unlawful discrimination and retaliation against Mr. Reis on the basis of his age and disability. The Defendants are various corporate entities that own and operate 7-8 Fogo de Chao Brazilian Steakhouse chain restaurants throughout the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Yim, Esq. FRANKLIN, GRINGER & COHEN, P.C. 666 Old Country Road, Suite 202 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 228-3131 E-mail: myim@franklingringer.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Provo Suit Over Defective Off-Road Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE PROVO and SUSAN CHERWA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00569-UNA (D. Del., May 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. According to the complaint, the 2023 and 2024 model year Ford Transit Trail vehicles are marketed to consumers looking for spacious, off-road capable vehicles for camping. Simply put, Ford marketed the 2023 to 2024 model year Ford Transit Trail class vehicles specifically for off-road driving, but the geometry of the wheel wells and the suspension cannot accommodate the 30.5-inch tires -- a substantial part of what makes the "Ford Transit" the "Ford Transit Trail." Due to this improper geometry, the standard 30.5-inch tires strike the wheel arch liners, which in turn leads to damage to both the wheel wells and the tires and poses a safety concern, says the suit. Despite Ford's knowledge of the Defect, which renders the Class Vehicles unsuitable for their intended purpose, it has failed to provide adequate repairs under warranty and has also failed to disclose the Defect to unsuspecting consumers. Due to Ford's misstatements and failure to disclose that the Defect rendered the Class Vehicles unsuitable for the specific purpose for which they were purchased, i.e. off-roading, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing or leasing their Class Vehicles, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Provo purchased a new 2024 Ford Transit Cargo Van equipped with the Transit Trail Package from AutoNation Ford White Bear Lake, an authorized Ford dealership located in White Bear Lake, Minnesota in or around February 2024. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net - and - Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Nate Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com FREESE II INC: Tucker Allowed to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYREAKA TUCKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FREESE II, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03494-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Boulee entered an order granting the motion to certify and motion to amend Plaintiff's complaint. The Clerk is directed to docket the first amended complaint for damages. The Court, however, declines to authorize the Notice and Consent Form submitted by the Plaintiff at this time. The Plaintiff is ordered to resubmit a proposed notice and consent form within seven days of the date of this Order that accounts for the additional allegations in the amended complaint and includes no typographical errors. The Court further entered an order that the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiff within 21 days of the date of this Order the names, dates of employment, work location and last known addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers of all current and former adult entertainers who worked at Club Blaze during the relevant period ("Employee Information"). The Defendants shall provide the Employee Information in an electronic form that can be used by Plaintiff in mailing, emailing and texting the Court-approved forms. If the Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information within 21 days of the date of this Order, the statute of limitations is equitably tolled for each day after the twenty-first day that the Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information. Additionally, the Court recognizes that the discovery period initially set for this case has expired and the deadline to file dispositive motions is May 30, 2025. In light of the Order, the dispositive motions deadline is stayed. The parties are ordered to file a status report within fourteen days of this Order detailing how this case should proceed given the expanded scope. The Plaintiff filed this action on Aug. 7, 2024, alleging that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and unlawfully retained tips paid to the Plaintiff in violation of the Tip Income Protection Act ("TIPA"). The Defendant offers tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services, advertising, public relations, and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FIoDkY at no extra charge.[CC] FRESHREALM INC: Casaneres Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rhonda Casaneres, as an individual, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FRESHREALM, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C25-00987 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04249. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia, FreshRealm's alleged failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide timely wage payments upon separation, and provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff also alleges FreshRealm committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diyari Vazquez, Esq. Melissa N. Eubanks, Esq. VGC, LLP 9461 Charleville Blvd. #757 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (424) 272-9855 Email: dvazquez@vgcllp.com meubanks@vgcllp.com FUTURE FINTECH: LaBelle Securities Class Suit Pending in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- Future FinTech Group 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 20, 2025, that LaBelle securities class suit is pending in the District of New Jersey. The LaBelle case is a putative securities class action filed in January 2024 and is pending in the District of New Jersey. Denise LaBelle ("Plaintiff") alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements in the company's public filings and disclosures relating to the former Chief Executive Officer of the Company Mr. Shanchun Huang and charges filed by the SEC against Mr. Shanchun Huang with manipulative trading in the stock of the Company using an offshore account shortly before he became the Company’s CEO in 2020 and failing to disclose his beneficial ownership. Mr. Huang has denied the allegations of trading before he became CEO. Plaintiff claims that these alleged misstatements caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, harming investors when the truth was revealed. The lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed in September 2024. The Company was served in September 2024, and the Plaintiff is currently seeking substituted service on the individual defendants. Once service is resolved, the Plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint, which the Company and other defendants intend to move to dismiss. Future FinTech Group Inc. (NASDAQ: FTFT), through its subsidiaries, produces and sells fruit juice concentrates, fruit beverages, and other fruit-related products in the People's Republic of China. The company was formerly known as SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc., and changed its name to Future FinTech Group Inc. in June 2017. Future FinTech Group Inc. is headquartered in Xi'an, the People's Republic of China. GEN DIGITAL INCORPORATED: Reisman Suit Transferred to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eli Reisman, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gen Digital Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-01316 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01653-SPL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gen Digital Inc. -- https://www.gendigital.com/us/en/ -- is a multinational software company co-headquartered in both Prague, Czech Republic (EU) and Tempe, Arizona (USA).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. WEITZ FIRM LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: John E Brigandi, Esq. KNUCKLES KOMOSINSKI & MANFRO LLP 600 E Crescent Ave., Ste. 201 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07677 Phone: (201) 391-0370 GEO GROUP: Awaits High Court Ruling in Aurora Detainees Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The GEO Group, Inc., filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit's decision in the class action lawsuit filed by civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center, according to the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Civil immigration detainees at the Aurora ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The complaint also claims that the Company was unjustly enriched based on the level of payment the detainees received for work performed in a Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") the Company is required to implement at the facility under the terms of its contract with the federal government. On July 6, 2015, the court found that detainees were not employees under the CMWA and dismissed this claim. On February 27, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiffs' class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 18, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Company's affirmative defenses, denying the Company's motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, and motion for decertification of the class, narrowing the class period for plaintiffs' TVPA claims, and otherwise ruling against the Company's motions for relief. All trial dates were stayed by court order pending appeal of certain of GEO's defenses to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was held on September 18, 2023. On October 22, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued an Order finding appellate review of GEO's claim of immunity was premature and, therefore, the Tenth Circuit was currently without jurisdiction to consider the merits of GEO's claimed immunity. On January 13, 2025, GEO filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. All trial dates remain stayed. GEO GROUP: Mesa Verde Detainees' Suit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a class action lawsuit filed by immigration detainees at the Mesa Verde remains stayed. Current and former detainees of the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center and the Golden State Annex ICE Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on July 13, 2022, against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. The complaint alleges that federal detainees who volunteer to participate in the VWP at GEO's Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex ICE facilities are employees of GEO and entitled to the state's minimum wage. Plaintiffs also make claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment, human trafficking, forced labor, California's Private Attorneys General Act and retaliation. GEO filed both a motion to stay the action pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in the State of Washington lawsuits and a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety. On July 10, 2023, the court entered a stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 10, 2025, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to lift the stay until the Ninth Circuit rules on GEO's Petition for Rehearing En Banc. The first of two State of Washington lawsuits, Nwauzor et al. v. GEO Group, was filed on September 26, 2017, by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017, by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that State of Washington minimum wage laws should be enforced with respect to detainees who volunteer to participate in a VWP administered by GEO at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (the “Center”) as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the terms of GEO’s contract. The Center houses people in the custody of federal immigration authorities while the federal government is determining their immigration status. In October 2021, an unfavorable jury verdict and court judgment resulting in a combined $23.2 million judgment entered against the Company in the retrial of the two cases, which judgment amounts were subsequently increased by a further award against the Company of attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest in the amount of $14.4 million. Post-judgment interest is accruing on these judgments in accordance with Washington law. The trial court waived the necessity to post a supersedeas bond for the combined judgments and has stayed enforcement of the verdict and judgments while GEO’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit was held on October 6, 2022. On March 7, 2023, the Ninth Circuit certified certain state law questions to the Washington Supreme Court. Oral argument before the Washington Supreme Court was held on October 17, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion answering the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit. Under the Ninth Circuit’s March 7, 2023 order certifying the above questions to the Washington Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit resumed control and jurisdiction over the State of Washington lawsuits. On February 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed its Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of GEO, arguing that the State of Washington judgments should be reversed because the Supremacy Clause precludes application of the Washington Minimum Wage Statute to work programs for federal detainees. In its Brief, the Department of Justice asserted that application of the Washington law independently contravened intergovernmental immunity because it would make federal detainees subject to provisions that do not apply, and never have applied, to persons in state custody, singling out a contractor with the federal government for obligations Washington does not itself bear. The Department of Justice also contended that the immigration statutory structure approved by Congress does not contemplate a role for states or state law in governing the VWP for federal detainees. On January 16, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion by a 2-1 vote affirming the lower court’s decision. That Opinion includes a 24-page dissenting opinion. On February 6, 2025, GEO timely filed its Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On March 20, 2025, the United States filed an Amicus Brief with the Ninth Circuit in which it argued that the January 16, 2025 decision of the Ninth Circuit is incorrect in multiple respects, runs contrary to Circuit precedent, and creates significant tension with the case law of other circuits. The United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees in the voluntary work program is preempted by a federal appropriation statute that sets the minimum allowance for detainee participants at $1 per day. Additionally, the United States argued that the application of the state minimum-wage law to federal immigration detainees likewise impermissibly discriminates against the federal government in violation of intergovernmental-immunity principles. A final mandate has not been issued by the Ninth Circuit and the appeal remains pending until resolution of the Petition for Rehearing. GERON CORPORATION: Faces 2 Class Suits Over RYTELO Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on March 13 and March 14, 2025, it and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Debestani v. Geron Corporation, et al., No. 3:25-cv-02507-CRB and Potvin v. Geron Corporation, et al., No. 3:25-cv-02563-CRB, respectively. Both lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the commercial potential of RYTELO. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company overstated RYTELO's commercial potential by making materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning RYTELO's commercial potential, including the lack of awareness among healthcare providers for RYTELO, the burden of monitoring requirements in administering the drug, and the impacts of seasonality and existing competition on RYTELO's sales, and that our stock price dropped when the Company disclosed in its earnings call on February 26, 2025, that we had observed flat revenue trends over the prior few months. The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. GLENS FALLS: Schultz Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERELY M. SCHULTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLENS FALLS HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00581-MAD-PJE (N.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) challenges GFH's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. Under ERISA, wellness programs must offer, and provide notice of, a reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to obtain the "full reward" -- including refunds for surcharges paid while completing the program. Instead, under the Glens Falls Hospital Health Plan, GFH imposes a discriminatory tobacco surcharge without providing participants with a reasonable alternative standard and fails to provide notice of the availability of a reasonable alternative standard, violating federal regulations and depriving employees of benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA. This complaint alleges that GFH imposes a discriminatory and unlawful tobacco surcharge. GFH bears the burden of proving that its tobacco surcharge program fully complies with every regulatory requirement under ERISA and its implementing regulations, including providing a clearly defined, reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to avoid the surcharge and receive a full refund if they satisfy the alternative. GFH cannot meet this burden because its Plan does not appear to offer any alternative standard at all. Without a reasonable alternative standard, GFH's surcharge is not a lawful wellness incentive, but an impermissible penalty imposed on employees based on a health factor, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an employee of GFH, who paid a tobacco surcharge of roughly $20 per paycheck (roughly $520 annually) associated with the health insurance offered through GFH. Glens Falls Hospital is a not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Glens Falls, New York, and is an affiliate of the Albany Med Health System. The Company operates as a regional hospital and healthcare provider, delivering medical and surgical services throughout the region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marina Resciniti, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Kimberly Dodson, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mresciniti@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com kdodson@sirillp.com GO BIG LLC: Macdonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Go Big LLC. The case is styled as Darren Macdonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Go Big LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01726-GMS (D. Ariz., May 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Go Big Media LLC -- https://www.gobig.llc/ -- does business as Startups.co. The company's focus is to help startups get customers, press, funding, and mentors, and refers to itself as a one-stop shop for entrepreneurs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq. BROWN PATENT LAW 15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Phone: (602) 529-3474 Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com - and - Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Class Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Deluca class suit. Barbara Deluca and Drew R. Naylor, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Limited Partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP et al. (S.D.N.Y., Case No. 19-CV-10498) In November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against GPB, GPB Holdings II, LP, the Partnership, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Lash, AAS, Axiom, Mr. Schneider, Mark Martino, and Ascendant. The Complaint alleges fraud and material omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment and losses in excess of $1.27 billion. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, compensatory, consequential, and general damages; disgorgement; rescission; restitution; punitive damages; and the establishment of a constructive trust. While the parties to the action stipulated in 2021 to stay this action pending resolution of the Criminal Case against defendants Mr. Gentile and Mr. Schneider's, the Court nevertheless ordered the stay lifted as to the so-called "Auditor Defendants" in January 2023. On June 24, 2024, in response to a June 20, 2024 joint letter request filed by several parties to the case to stay all proceedings pending the preparation of a formal stipulation of settlement, a Magistrate Judge in the case entered an Order that all deadlines and proceedings related to the action are stayed with respect to all parties until further order of the Court. On January 21, 2025, the Court acknowledged that, pursuant to the Receivership Order, this matter is stayed as against all GPB defendants. A Stay Notice was filed in this matter on January 7, 2025. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Kinnie Ma Settlement for Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2025, that the Kinnie Ma class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al. (W.D. Texas, Case No. 19-CV-01050) In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against GPB, certain GPB-managed limited partnerships, including the Partnership, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain former principals of the GPB-managed limited partnerships, auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and other individuals. The Complaint alleges violations and/or aiding and abetting violations of the Texas Securities Act, fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Plaintiffs allege losses in excess of $1.8 billion and are seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission, fees and costs, and class certification. On June 1, 2022, the Western District of Texas Court consolidated this matter with Barasch v. GPB Capital, et al. (19-cv-01079); only the Kinnie Ma case continues, including the claims at issue in the Barasch v. GPB Capital matter and Loretta Dehay (as described below), which were consolidated under the Kinnie Ma docket number. On June 23, 2022, the Court denied Defendants Mr. Gentile and Mr. Schneider's motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the criminal case, U.S. v. Gentile, et al., No. 1:21-CR-54-DG (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 1, 2022, and defendants filed answers thereafter. On August 21, 2023, the Court granted the indicted defendants' May 2023 motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related criminal case. On March 21, 2024, the District Judge denied Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order staying the case, and affirmed the order granting Defendants' motion to stay. A Stay Notice was filed in this matter on January 7, 2025. The Receiver is currently in discussions with representatives of the plaintiffs regarding a potential settlement of this matter. On May 2, 2025, the Receiver provided written notice to the EDNY Court that the Receiver intends, in the near future, to seek authorization from the EDNY Court to enter into such a potential settlement, based on an agreement in principle that is currently being finalized amongst the parties. Only if such a settlement is finalized will it be presented to the EDNY Court for approval and it will be also subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate. GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Younker Class Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------- GPB Automotive Portfolio LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2025, that the United States District Court for the New York Supreme Court stayed the Younker class suit. In re: GPB Capital Holdings, LLC Litigation (formerly, Adam Younker, Dennis and Cheryl Schneider, Elizabeth Plaza, and Plaza Professional Center Inc. PFT Sharing v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. and Peter G. Golder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al.) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, Case No. 157679/2019) In May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage, LP, GPB Waste Management, LP, Mr. Gentile, Mr. Lash, Macrina Kgil, a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Mr. Schneider, AAS, Ascendant, and Axiom. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief. A Stay Notice was filed in this matter on January 15, 2025. The Court entered an Order to Stay on January 17, 2025. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and registered investment adviser, is the Partnership's General Partner pursuant to the terms of the Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, pursuant of which, GPB conducts and manages its businesses. It owned and operated multiple retail automotive dealerships, including in most cases their related real estate. GRUEN ASSOCIATES: Birch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gruen Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Christina Birch, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Gruen Associates, Inc., Case No. 25STCV14578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Gruen -- https://www.gruenassociates.com/ -- is the urban planner/designer, architect, and landscape architect on this new BRT project that is closer to becoming a reality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GVR HOSPITALITY: Campoverde Seeks to Recover Bussers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA "ALEJANDRA" VILLACRES CAMPOVERDE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GVR HOSPITALITY, LLC, d/b/a THE LEOPARD AT DES ARTISTES, PAULA BOLLA-SORRENTINO, and GIANFRANCO SORRENTINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04019 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Plaintiffs at the required overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and failure to provide wage notices/statements. The Plaintiff has been working for Defendants as a busser for the last eight months. GVR Hospitality, LLC owns and operates The Leopard at Des Artiste Restaurant located in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 HADDAD APPAREL: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarity situated Plaintiff v. The Haddad Apparel Group, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05095 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Haddad for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://rookiekids.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Haddad's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Haddad Apparel Group, Ltd. operates the website that offers shirts and shoes for both men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Camarena, Esq. 1016 W. Jackson, No. 32 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (630) 534-2527 E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the class actions relating to its baby food products remain pending. Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous consumer class actions alleging that the Company's Earth's Best(R) baby food products (the "Products") contain unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions were transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-678 (the "Consolidated Proceeding"). In the Consolidated Proceeding, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Company violated various state consumer protection laws and assert other state and common law warranty and unjust enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the Company made adequate disclosures. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. . Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as well as any claims challenging the use of the "USDA Organic" seal on the Products' labeling, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the alleged presence of arsenic in the Products. The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 23, 2025. One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the Consolidated Proceeding. The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled. The claims raised in these lawsuits were brought in the wake of a highly publicized report issued by the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy on Oversight and Reform, dated February 4, 2021 (the "House Report"), addressing the presence of heavy metals in baby foods made by certain manufacturers, including the Company. Since the publication of the House Report, the Company has also received information requests with respect to the advertising and quality of its baby foods from certain governmental authorities, as such authorities investigate the claims made in the House Report. The Company is fully cooperating with these requests and has provided documents and other requested information. The Company has been named in one civil government enforcement action, State of New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Nurture, Inc., et al., which was filed by the New Mexico Attorney General against the Company and several other manufacturers based on the alleged presence of heavy metals in their baby food products. The Company and several other manufacturers moved to dismiss the New Mexico Attorney General's lawsuit, and the Court denied that motion. The Company filed its answer to the New Mexico Attorney General's amended complaint on April 23, 2022, and discovery is ongoing. The Company denies the New Mexico Attorney General's allegations and maintains that its baby foods are safe, properly labeled, and compliant with New Mexico law. In addition to the consumer class actions, the Company is currently named in numerous lawsuits in state and federal courts alleging some form of personal injury from the ingestion of the Company's Products, purportedly due to unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals. These lawsuits generally allege injuries related to neurological development disorders such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend EDNY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend securities class action pending in the Eastern District of New York. The Company and certain of its former officers (collectively, the "Defendants") are defendants in a consolidated class action complaint in the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). A Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the summer of 2017, which asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal controls. After Defendants' initial motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which made allegations similar to those in the previous complaint. After several years of motion practice and related court orders, on September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2023, appealing the District Court's decision dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3, 2024. The Court held oral argument on Plaintiffs' appeal on December 5, 2024, and the Parties await a decision. The former Board of Directors and certain former officers of the Company are defendants in a consolidated action, originally filed in 2017 in the Eastern District of New York, under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the "Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action"). The plaintiffs allege that the Company's former directors and certain former officers made materially false and misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and financial results and that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and claim breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. After several years of motion practice and related court orders in the related Consolidated Securities Action, on July 24, 2020, the plaintiffs made a stockholder litigation demand on the Board containing overlapping factual allegations to those set forth in the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiffs were informed that the Board had finished investigating and resolved, among other things, that the demand should be rejected. In light of developments in the Consolidated Securities Action referenced above that remanded that case for further proceedings, the parties submitted a joint status report on December 29, 2021 requesting that the District Court continue the temporary stay pending the District Court's reconsideration of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties have agreed to extend the stay during the pendency of the pending appeal in the Consolidated Securities Action, most recently through the earlier of September 29, 2025 or 30 days after the Second Circuit issues a decision on plaintiffs' appeal. HEALTHCARE HD: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare HD LLC. The case is styled as Robert Lewis, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Healthcare HD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02756-AT (N.D. Ga., May 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare HD -- https://healthcarehd.com/ -- is a durable medical equipment supplier, shipping to all 50 United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 955-7732 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com HERTZ CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sconce Due March 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sconce v. Hertz Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01197 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify the case schedule as follows: -- Class certification discovery shall Feb. 17, 2026 be completed by: -- Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion March 30, 2026 for Class Certification is: -- All motions, except for motions for Oct. 2, 2026 continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: -- Final Pretrial Conference currently June 9, 2026 set for: is reset for March 22. 2027 -- Jury Trial currently set for: Aug. 31, 2026 is reset for: May 25, 2027 The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Hertz is a car rental company based in Estero, Florida, known for its main brand Hertz, along with Dollar Rent A Car, Firefly Car Rental, and Thrifty Car Rental.[CC] HONEST CO: Inks $20MM Settlement in IPO Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Honest Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for he quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has entered into a $20 million settlement of the IPO securities litigation case. On September 15, 2021, Cody Dixon filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging federal securities law violations by the Company, certain current officers and directors, and certain underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") ("Securities Litigation Case"). A second putative class action complaint containing similar allegations against the Company and certain current officers and directors was filed by Stephen Gambino on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. These related complaints have been transferred to the same court and a Lead Plaintiff has been appointed in the matter, and a putative consolidated class action complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff on February 21, 2022, alleging claims and seeking relief under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's IPO. Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 14, 2022. On July 18, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On May 1, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the consolidated class action was granted in part and denied in part, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California limiting the certified class to only those persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock pursuant and traceable to the Company's IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, as well as all persons and entities that acquired ownership of a trading account, retirement account, or any other similar investment account or portfolio containing the Company's publicly traded common stock that was purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant and traceable to the IPO offering documents prior to August 19, 2021, and were damaged thereby. On August 14, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint naming as additional defendants Catterton Management Company L.L.C., L Catterton VIII, L.P., L. Catterton VIII Offshore, L.P., THC Shared Abacus, LP, Catterton Managing Partner VIII, L.L.C., and C8 Management, L.L.C. On October 16, 2023, those additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint with respect to the claims against them. On January 31, 2024, that motion to dismiss was granted by the court to the extent those additional defendants challenged the claims as untimely. The court granted Lead Plaintiff leave to amend within fourteen days of that order. On February 14, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint against the additional defendants. The additional defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, which was denied by the court on April 22, 2024. On January 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and asking the court to stay the case so the parties could have additional time to negotiate the terms of a formal stipulation of settlement and related documentation. The court entered an order staying the case on the same day. On April 14, 2025, the court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for the release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendants in the second amended consolidated complaint, the Company have agreed to pay $20,000,000 to resolve the dispute, to be fully funded by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company has recorded the settlement amount of $20,000,000 within accrued expenses and a corresponding insurance recovery of $20,000,000 within prepaids and other current assets related to the legal settlement on the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2025. The determination that the recorded insurance recovery receivable is probable of collection is based on the terms of the applicable insurance policies, settlement agreement, and communications with the insurers. The proposed settlement does not constitute an admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company, the named individual defendants, or the underwriters. The proposed settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions and contingencies out of our control. There can be no guarantee that all of these conditions and contingencies will occur. Should a material condition or contingency to the settlement fail to occur, one or both of the parties to the settlement may exercise their right to terminate the settlement agreement. HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Clark Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julia Clark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HURLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC and ORDERPROTECTION.COM, Case No. 30-2025-01466690-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01056. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint alleging: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; False and Misleading Advertising; Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Unjust Enrichment; Breach of Contract; Tortious Interference with Contract; and Violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act against Defendants.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey M. Singletary, Esq. Colin R. Higgins, Esq. Alexis N. Flores, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Phone: 714.427.7000 Facsimile: 714.427.7799 Email: jsingletary@swlaw.com chiggins@swlaw.com aflores@swlaw.com ILLINOIS: Bid for Class Cert in Kainz Remains August 1 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kainz, et al., v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250 (C.D. Ill., Filed Sept. 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order as follows: -- Expert discovery remains due by: July 11, 2025 -- The motion for class certification Aug. 1, 2025 remains due by: -- The parties are expected to review May 1, 2025 Judge Hanna's Standing Order dated: The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination. The IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services.[CC] IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS: Court Blocks Rodriguez's Detention ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the United States District Court of the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, granted a preliminary injunction in the case titled Rodriguez v. Bostock et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash). The Court held that Jose Rodriguez's detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2) violates due process and that the Board of Immigration Appeals' "unworkable and ineffective" appeals process justifies immediate injunctive relief. The preliminary injunction takes immediate effect, compelling Defendants to reassess Plaintiff's custody status under Section 1226(a) and ensuring compliance with Ninth Circuit precedent safeguarding against arbitrary detention. Rodriguez, a non citizen resident of Grandview, Washington, detained at the Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center (NWIPC), filed his complaint on March 20, 2025, and moved for a preliminary injunction against Defendants, including ICE Field Office Director Drew Bostock, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and officials of the Tacoma Immigration Court. Rodriguez challenged his mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) following an Immigration Judge's denial of bond. Plaintiff alleges that his detention is unlawful and that he should be subject to the discretionary detention scheme under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), which permits bond hearings. Judge Cartwright found that Plaintiff is likely to succeed in demonstrating that he was improperly detained under Section 1225(b)(2), which governs "applicants for admission," rather than Section 1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention of residents. The statute defines an "applicant for admission" as a noncitizen "who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States" (Section 1225(a)(1)). Plaintiff, a noncitizen residing in the United States since 2009, argued he does not meet this definition. The Court relied on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022), which held that Section 1225(b) "supplement[s] Section 1226's detention scheme" and primarily applies to noncitizens seeking entry. The Court also noted that Section 1226(a) allows bond hearings where detainees may secure release upon proving they are neither flight risks nor dangers to the community (In re Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (B.I.A. 2006)). The Court determined that Plaintiff faces irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. "Every day of deprivation of liberty is one this Court can never restore... [Detention] inflicts profound physical, emotional, and economic burdens on detainees and their families," the Court said, citing Cortez v. Sessions, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2018)). Plaintiff's declaration detailed: -- Family hardship: His wife, the sole caregiver for their children, faces 'increased financial, caregiving, and emotional burdens,' including inability to maintain household stability. -- Legal prejudice: Detention impedes his ability to 'gather evidence and prepare [his] case' for removal proceedings, risking unjust deportation. -- Health deterioration: Prolonged detention has exacerbated his mental and physical health conditions, including anxiety and untreated medical issues. The Court elaborated that irreparable harm arises not only from the loss of liberty but also from the cumulative effects of detention on Plaintiff's fundamental rights. Citing Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court held that "irreparable harm is present when at least some individuals who would be detained if not provided a bond hearing will be granted conditional release." Here, Plaintiff's evidence, including his longstanding community ties and lack of criminal history, demonstrated he is "very likely to be granted conditional release" if afforded a hearing. The Court further reasoned that the absence of a bond hearing constitutes a per se violation of due process, as it deprives Plaintiff of the opportunity to challenge his detention before a neutral arbiter. Drawing on Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 991 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court emphasized that :prolonged detention without a hearing inflicts a unique injury that cannot be fully remedied post hoc." The Court also considered the broader societal impact, noting that detention without due process undermines public confidence in the fairness of immigration enforcement. Moreover, the Court found that the ongoing harm to Plaintiff's family constitutes an independent basis for finding irreparable injury. Citing Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court recognized that "severe economic and emotional strain on family members, particularly children, resulting from a parent's detention, supports injunctive relief." Plaintiff's evidence showed that his children faced disrupted schooling and emotional distress due to his absence, compounding the irreparable nature of the harm. The Court concluded that these combined harms—loss of liberty, legal prejudice, health deterioration, and family hardship—necessitate immediate relief to prevent further injury. The Court rejected Defendants' contention that "the government has a compelling interest in the steady enforcement of its immigration laws," finding: -- Minimal harm to Defendants: The injunction requires only a bond hearing, not automatic release, and Defendants' application of Section 1225(b)(2) to long-term residents deviates from historical practice (Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018)). -- Public interest in due process: "Neither equity nor the public's interest are furthered by allowing violations of federal law to continue" (Galvez v. Jaddou, 52 F.4th 821, 832 (9th Cir. 2022)). The public has a "strong interest in ensuring the Constitution is observed" (Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 996 (9th Cir. 2017)). -- BIA delays: Administrative exhaustion through the BIA is futile, as Executive Office for Immigration Review data indicated an average processing time of 204 days for bond appeals, with 200 cases taking "a year or longer to resolve." -- Mootness: Most appeals are rendered moot by ICE releases or removal orders before adjudication. -- Non-precedential decisions: Despite two unpublished BIA remands rejecting mandatory detention for residents, Tacoma Immigration Judges continued denying bond. Pursuant to its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court: -- enjoined Defendants from classifying Plaintiff under Section 1225(b)(2); -- ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff a bond hearing under Section 1226(a); -- directed that the bond hearing be recorded to ensure procedural fairness. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MR5BJM from PacerMonitor.com. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Rojas Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Rojas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a New York corporation, Case No. 25-2-12801-6 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Yakima County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03065. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to pay all overtime wages; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. Justice Law Corporation 751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Ryan R. Jones, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com rrjones@fisherphillips.com IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IOVA) securities between May 9, 2024 and May 8, 2025. Iovance is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company which develops and commercializes cell therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and other solid tumor cancers. 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 Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. (IOVA) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) new Authorized Treatment Centers ("ATCs") were experiencing longer timelines to begin treating patients with Amtagvi; (2) the Company's sales team and new ATCs were ineffective in patient identification and patient selection for Amtagvi, leading to higher patient drop-offs; (3) the foregoing dynamics led to higher costs and lower revenue because ATCs could not keep pace with manufactured product; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On May 8, 2025, Iovance released its first quarter 2025 financial results, revealing a quarterly total product revenue of $49.3 million, a significant decline from the prior quarter's $73.7 million. The Company also announced its full fiscal year 2025 total product revenue guidance had been slashed from $450 million - $475 million to $250 million - $300 million, a reduction of over 40% at the midpoint. The Company revealed it was "revising full-year 2025 revenue guidance to reflect recent launch dynamics" of Amtagvi. The Company further revealed "[t]he updated forecast considers experience with ATC [authorized treatment center] growth trajectories and treatment timelines for new ATCs." On this news, the price of Iovance shares declined $1.42 per share, or 44.8%, to close at $1.75 per share on May 9, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class are required to file their papers with the court by July 14, 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. For more information, click here. 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 Iovance Biotherapeutics, 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] IQBAR INC: IQ Bar Contains Less Protein, Shahinian Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SHAHINIAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. IQBAR, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:25-cv-01112 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2025) alleges that its IQ Bar protein bars, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because: (1) the protein claim in the Nutrition Facts Panel misrepresents the quality of the protein in the Products and the percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving and (2) the Products contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the labels. Accordingly, the Products use pea protein as the sole protein source. The PDCAAS of such proteins is significantly less than 1. Because of the protein claim on the front label, IQBAR is required under 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(c)(7) to report a PDCAAS-corrected %DRV in the Nutrition Facts panel of the Products. It does not. Instead, the Nutrition Facts panel on the Products states that the 12 grams of lower-quality protein in Products provides 24 percent of the Recommended Daily Value, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Shahinian is one of those millions of Americans. He tracks his protein intake and takes a daily protein powder supplement to ensure he gets enough protein in his diet. He does so in order to maintain his weight and meet fitness goals. IQBAR, INC. is a food and beverage company that offers protein bars and IQMIX hydration mixes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com JAF COMMUNICATIONS: $4.5MM Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that The Messenger may pay a $4.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the now-bankrupt news website violated federal and state law by failing to give employees requisite notice before shutting down operations in January 2024. The deal with JAF Communications Inc., which does business as The Messenger, received preliminary court approval on April 28, 2025. The class action settlement covers 275 former employees who worked at, received assignments from or reported to any JAF sites and were terminated within 30 days of January 31, 2024. Class members do not have to do anything to be eligible to receive a share of the settlement fund, should it be recovered. According to the settlement agreement, the deal does not guarantee payment to class members, as the now-defunct media company's assets are being liquidated in a separate proceeding. JAF has agreed to the judgment against it for $4,500,000, and the attorneys for the class will attempt to recover these funds from the liquidation, the document says. If any money is recovered from the proceeding, it will be distributed on a pro rata basis depending on class members' average monthly gross wages or salary, benefits under any employee benefit plan, hire date, notice date and termination date, the settlement agreement shares. Class members will be contacted after the aforementioned proceeding ends with more information about their possible settlement payout amount, the agreement adds. The court will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the Messenger class action settlement at a hearing on July 8, 2025. According to the court's preliminary approval order, notice of the Messenger settlement will be mailed to class members' last known addresses within 20 days of April 28, 2025. The Messenger class action lawsuit alleged that JAF violated the 60-day-notice requirement of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and a similar New York law, which requires companies to give employees at least 90 days' notice before any foreseeable mass layoffs or closings. The class action suit contended that by failing to issue requisite notices, the company owes workers 60 days of their wages -- or 90 for New York-based employees -- plus ERISA benefits. [GN] JAMES HARDIE: Continues to Defend Australia Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Hardie Industries plc disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from an Australia securities class suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. On 8 May 2023, a group proceeding (class action) was filed in The Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia by Raeken Pty Ltd against James Hardie Industries plc on behalf of persons who purchased certain James Hardie equity securities from 7 February 2022 through 7 November 2022. The litigation is being funded by a litigation funder in Australia, CASL Funder Pty Ltd. The proceeding includes allegations that James Hardie breached relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian and Securities Investment Act 2001 (Cth), including with respect to certain forward-looking statements James Hardie made about forecasted financial performance measures during the period specified above. The Company believes the challenged statements were proper and is defending the matter vigorously. James Hardie Industries plc is a world leader in the manufacturing of fiber cement building solutions, and a market leader in fiber gypsum and cement-bonded boards in Europe. Our current primary geographic markets include the United States of America (“US,” “USA” or the “United States”), Australia, Europe and New Zealand. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Approval of $145MM Deal in Xyrem Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a preliminary approval hearing regarding the class settlement agreement has been scheduled, and no trial date has been set for the remaining cases against Jazz filed by Xyrem purchasers. From June 2020 to May 2022, a number of lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the patent litigation settlement agreements Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc entered with generic drug manufacturers who had filed ANDAs violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws, as follows: * On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by BCBS against the Company Defendants. The BCBS Lawsuit also the BCBS Defendants. * On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and another by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. * On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the City of Providence Defendants. * On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against UFCW Defendants. * On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and refiled their respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. * On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the A.F. of L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc. * On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International, plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC. * On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit. In December 2020, the above cases were centralized and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. On March 18, 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., raising similar allegations. On March 24, 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the UHS Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings with the other cases. On August 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Company Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints in the cases referenced above. On October 8, 2021, Humana Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On October 8, 2021, Molina Healthcare Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On February 17, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On April 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on class certification in the consolidated multi-district litigation referenced above. On May 12, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily certified classes of Xyrem purchasers seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Court excluded Xywav purchasers from the classes. On April 26, 2024, we, Hikma, and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment. The Court held oral argument on these motions on July 19, 2024. On August 26, 2024, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for summary judgment. Certain administrative service organization plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of a portion of the Court's summary judgment ruling. On December 16, 2024, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On January 15, 2025, Aetna, Inc., which is not a party to the consolidated multi-district litigation, filed a notice of appeal of the order denying reconsideration. On March 26, 2025, we and Hikma filed a motion to dismiss Aetna's appeal. On June 13, 2024, we filed a motion to decertify the class. On June 28, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the definition of the certified class. The Court held oral argument on these motions on August 22, 2024. On October 18, 2024, the Court issued a decision denying our motion to decertify the class and granting the plaintiffs' motion to amend the class definition. On November 1, 2024, we filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking leave to appeal the Court's decision amending the class definition. On January 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied our petition for permission to appeal. On April 7, 2025, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, our wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into a class settlement agreement with the class of indirect Xyrem purchasers to settle all claims of participating class members against the Company with respect to our actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with the ANDA filers. Pursuant to the class settlement agreement, which was entered into with counsel representing the class representatives, we agreed to pay a total of $145 million in a lump sum. The class settlement agreement remains subject to court approval. The class settlement agreement, in which we deny all alleged wrongdoing, also includes specified releases by class members of Jazz and its past, present and future affiliates, directors, officers, employees and other related parties, for all conduct concerning any of the matters alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs who affirmatively opt out of the class will not be bound by the release and will not receive any settlement proceeds. Additionally, the class settlement agreement grants us the right to rescind the settlement agreement in the event an agreed upon percentage based on Xyrem purchases or payments made by potential class members that opt out. This settlement, if finalized on the agreed-upon terms, will resolve the majority of claims at issue in the multidistrict litigation. If the class settlement agreement is not approved by the Court, or we terminate the class settlement agreement, we intend to defend against these claims vigorously. We also remain confident in our defenses to the other claims brought by plaintiffs described above, including that the patent settlement agreements at issue were and are pro-competitive, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. The Court scheduled a preliminary approval hearing regarding the class settlement agreement for May 15, 2025. No trial date has been set for the remaining cases against Jazz. On January 13, 2023, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, notified the Court that they had reached a settlement-in-principle with the class action plaintiffs. On April 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on a motion for preliminary approval of this proposed settlement. On May 12, 2023, the Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On January 11, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion for final approval of the proposed settlement. The Court deferred ruling and scheduled a further hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement on April 17, 2024. During February and March 2024, the parties notified the Court of settlements between certain non-class action plaintiffs and each of Amneal and Lupin, and the Court dismissed those plaintiffs' claims against the applicable parties. On April 17, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the motion for final approval of the settlement between the class action plaintiffs, Amneal, and Lupin. On December 11, 2023, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. and Health Options, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., and Eurohealth (USA), Inc., raising similar allegations. On January 23, 2024, the Blue Cross Florida case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and consolidated with the above referenced multidistrict litigation for pretrial purposes. On May 9, 2022, Aetna filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Labs, Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc, raising similar allegations. On December 27, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss Aetna's complaint. As a result of that ruling, the generic defendants have been dismissed from the case, and certain of Aetna's claims against Jazz have been dismissed. On January 27, 2023, Aetna filed an amended complaint against Jazz. On March 22, 2023, we filed motions to dismiss and to strike portions of the amended complaint. On June 26, 2023, the Court granted our motions, and granted Aetna leave to further amend its complaint. On November 17, 2023, Aetna filed its second amended complaint. On February 2, 2024, we filed our answer to the second amended complaint and Hikma filed a motion to quash service. The Court held a hearing on Hikma's motion on December 4, 2024 and has set a further hearing for June 4, 2025. The Court has not set a further schedule in this case. The plaintiffs in certain of these lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of indirect purchasers of Xyrem. Each of the lawsuits generally alleges violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with the Company Defendants' conduct related to Xyrem, including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with each of the other named defendants. Each of the lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed against the Company Defendants making similar or related allegations. If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be required to pay significant monetary damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. As of March 31, 2025, we recorded an accrual of $172.0 million within accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, for charges related to presently expected resolution of some portion of the Xyrem antitrust litigation, including the class settlement. The related expense is included within selling, general and administrative expenses in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Loss for the three months ended March 31, 2025. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a global biopharmaceutical company based in Ireland. JEROME HARRIS: Class Cert Bid Opposition Briefs Due June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Jerome Harris, et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATON), Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra Life Insurance Company's unopposed motion to set briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: The deadline for any briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 6, 2025. The deadline for any reply briefs in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3EDK6 at no extra charge.[CC] JEROME HARRIS: Class Cert Briefs in Carmichael Due June 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al., v. HARRIS et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATON), Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), he Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra Life Insurance Company's unopposed motion to set briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: The deadline for any briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 6, 2025. The deadline for any reply briefs in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CVnIU1 at no extra charge.[CC] JIPYONG LLC: BHS Law Sues Over Unfair Competition Law Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- BHS Law LLP, a California limited liability partnership, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. JIPYONG LLC, a Korean limited liability company, and JINHEE KIM, a Korean individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-04328 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2025), is brought for violation of the Unfair Competition Law and other torts. California does not allow legal practice through LLC (whether foreign or domestic). Jipyong LLC is engaged in unlawful practice of law by appearing in at least three cases on behalf of California entities. According to Ms. Kim, Jipyong LLC also appeared in numerous litigations in California. The other two cases (in addition to Solarpark, supra) are Choi v. Individual, pending in the Superior Court of California in and for Orange County and Bhs Law LLP vs. Moreh, Inc. (located in Sunnyvale) pending in the Superior Court of California in and for Santa Clara County. Additionally, Jipyong LLC is not a registered foreign law consultant ("FLC") in California. Instead, it is Ms. Kim who is individually registered as FLC in California. However, she should not have qualified for a FLC in California because she fails to meet the requirement – she is not licensed to practice law in Korea. See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.44(a)(1) (requirement of being admitted to practice in "a foreign country"). (Please be advised that "Korea" used herein means South Korea or formally known as the Republic of Korea.) Her FLC registration also fails to show her affiliation with or employment by Jipyong LLC, in violation of Rules of the State Bar, Title 3, Div. 3, Ch. 4, Rule 3.402, subd. (A) (for failing to update her affiliation on the registration), (B) (advising on California law rather than "exclusively regarding the law of a foreign jurisdiction"), and (F) (claiming to be a licensee of the State Bar of California). Jipyong LLC's webpage for Ms. Kim's bio lists a long list of engagements, which may include providing legal services to U.S. residents. Plaintiff will conduct discoveries to identify any unlawful practice of law among the accomplishment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff BLLP is a limited liability partnership – law firm registered with the State Bar of California since 2014. BLLP is located in Campbell, California and engaged in providing legal services to Korean-American or Korean companies' branches and subsidiaries in San Francisco Bary Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Song, Esq. BHS LAW, LLP 2559 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: (408)628-4257 Fax: (408)628-4258 Email: Briansong@SongLeeLaw.com JOSEPH J. WILLIAMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Joseph J. Williams, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05067 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://luggagebase.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Joseph J. Williams' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Joseph J. Williams, Inc. operates the website that offers travel products and related accessories, including luggage, backpacks, duffel bags, briefcases, handbags, packing organizers, travel adapters, wallets, and toiletry bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: achan@ealg.law KARMAGREEN LLC: Bemis Sues Over Psychologically Addictive Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Bemis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. KARMAGREEN, LLC and JAMES P. MORRISSETTE, Case No. 2:25-cv-00418-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., May 19, 2025), is brought seeking an injunction shutting down sales of Tianaa, a full refund to class members of all money spent on the product, and/or disgorgement of the substantial profits that Defendants have generated from the sale of the product which are physically and psychologically addictive with a high potential for abuse. The Defendants are the inventors, manufacturers, and sellers of a psychoactive drug called tianeptine, or "Tia" for short, which is sold under the brand "Tianaa." The Tianaa products are sold at hundreds of stores across the United States. The Defendants promise the Tianaa products are natural dietary supplements that provide a wide array of mental and social benefits such as "mellow moods" and "energy," and "stress relief." What Defendants do not disclose is that Tianaa contains tianeptine, a full µ-receptor opioid agonist that can lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. In fact, tianeptine shares characteristics with United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Schedule II Controlled Substances like morphine, methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, and phencyclidine (PCP). The Defendants intentionally formulated Tianaa to be extremely physically and psychologically addictive. As a result, it has high potential for abuse. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Tianaa Products if he had known that it was extremely physically and psychologically addictive with a high potential for abuse. As a result of the addictive nature of the product, Plaintiff is at risk of purchasing the product again. Therefore, an injunction would benefit Plaintiff in the future by removing from the market a product that is highly likely to trigger addictive behaviors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Tianaa in January 2025 at retail stores located in Illinois. Karmagreen manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells the subject product. Karmagreen also owns various intellectual property rights to the Tianaa products, including patents and trademarks for Tianaa White, Tianaa Red, and Tianaa Green.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 South Dixie Hwy, # 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Phone: 954-799-5914 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Brittany S. Scott SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, #1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-4000 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com KDR REALTY: Residents Sue Over Apartments' Water System Problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxie Hammill, writing for kcur.org, reports that residents of the 188-unit Aspen Place Apartments were given just 48 hours to move after the city of Gardner said the water infrastructure deteriorated so badly that it presented safety concerns. A new lawsuit alleges that the owner was aware for years about the issues but took no action to address them. Former residents of the now-condemned Aspen Place Apartments in Gardner have sued for damages, alleging that the complex's owner, KDR Realty LLC, was aware for years of the persistent water problems that ultimately rendered the complex uninhabitable, yet took next to no action to address them. The suit also alleges that KDR did not tell prospective tenants of problems with the water system before they signed a lease and that the business tried to pass the costs of the plumbing problems along to tenants through fees and a requirement to buy a renter's insurance personal liability policy with a minimum limit of $100,000. On May 6, residents of the 188-unit complex were given 48 hours to move after the city of Gardner said the water infrastructure had deteriorated so badly that it presented safety concerns for inhabitants and could hamper firefighting efforts. Residents there had been reporting frequent leaky pipes, mold and mildew, low water pressure and times when water wasn't available. The lawsuit seeks class-action status The suit was brought in federal court by residents Aric Cooperwood and Anthony and Rachel Fellows but seeks class-action status on behalf of tenants who lived there for the past five years. That covers well over 1,000 people and "quite possibly several thousand," according to the petition. It seeks damages for back rent, property loss and emotional distress. According to a footnote in the petition, the rent damages alone could amount to over $11 million. The landlord "has demonstrated a robust pattern and practice of misconduct ranging from gross negligence to outright venality, both within and without Aspen Place," the suit says. Eight business entities are named as defendants. They were companies related to current owners KDR, with addresses in Lenexa and Kansas City, Kansas, and other companies related to Axiom Property Management, of Kansas City, Missouri. KDR is listed with the Kansas Secretary of State's office as owned by Puneet and Aabha Gorawara of Lenexa. Axiom was the owner of the Aspen Place property before 2022, when KDR purchased it. 'Shamelessly nickel-and-dimed' residents Aspen Place, 101 Aspen St. in Gardner, was built in 1954 as family housing for the Olathe Naval Air Station (now the New Century AirCenter). Its water supply still comes from New Century. The complex owners had been cited by Gardner 43 times from January through May 5, when the condemnation notice was posted, according to city records. The day before it was condemned, a fire truck sank into a street at the complex while responding to an emergency call. Aric Cooperwood, one of the named plaintiffs, moved into Aspen Place in December 2022 and had renewed through January, 2026. He was paying $1,063 a month plus an extra fee for "landlord liability," according to the suit. The owners "shamelessly nickel-and-dimed," the Aspen Place tenants, charging fees for water usage while failing to provide essential services, the suit alleges. "Reading between the lines, the terms of Mr. Cooperwood's lease rendered it that much more evident that KDR knew the complex's water systems were a mess and passed the cost and responsibility therefore onto tenants," the suit says. The two other plaintiffs, Anthony and Rachel Fellows, had lived at the complex since 2020 and reported sewage backups and mold, as well as a two-week water outage around Christmas 2023 and a week-long outage in 2024. KDR was "exceedingly slow" to respond and also marked maintenance requests "complete" without having done anything, the suit says. The lawsuit also alleges that the owners retaliated against the Fellowses because of negative reviews they'd left online and because Rachel commented in a news story. The management rejected their lease renewal application, relenting only after insisting Rachel delete the negative reviews, according to the suit. Lawsuit website set up for Aspen Place residents Attorney Bryce Bell of the Kansas City-based Bell Law firm, who is representing Cooperwood and the Fellowses, said they have used class action lawsuits for past housing cases. "We look at it as the best avenue to help the most people as possible," Bryce told the Post in an interview. "It provides the most relief to the most people and is the best vehicle to achieve that goal." Bell Law has also set up a website for Aspen Place residents to find the best resources at aspenplacelawsuit.com. "The years of neglect leading up to condemnation were well-suited for a class action lawsuit," Bell said. The Axiom companies are named because they owned the complex before 2022, when KDR bought it for $9 million. The suit seeks disclosure of information that may have been disclosed during that sale. Attorneys listed for the defendants did not immediately respond to the Post's request for comment. [GN] KRISPY KREME: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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. For more information, click here. 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., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] LABORATORY CORPORATION: Wise Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Christopher Wise, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 207518 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00630. The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action on a class basis during the putative class period. The caption of the Complaint states that it is a Class Action Complaint For Damages and asserts the following class claims: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ferry Eden Lopez, Esq. Neil Eddington, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 310 552 5000 Facsimile: +1 310 552 5001 Email: ferry.lopez@klgates.com neil.eddington@klgates.com LANDMARK RECOVERY: Sued Over Systemic Constitutional Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Lovell Smith, pro se, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LANDMARK RECOVERY, 1ST STEP RECOVERY, WAYSIDE CHRISTIAN MISSION, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-50, in their individual and official capacities, Case No. 3:25-cv-00288-DJH (W.D. Ky., May 19, 2025), is brought challenging systemic constitutional violations inflicted upon thousands of indigent American citizens residing in publicly funded rehabilitation centers and sober living programs, which function as arms of the state under color of law while fraudulently operating under the guise of "private" actors to escape constitutional scrutiny. These facilities, funded in whole or in part by Medicaid and/or other state and federal sources, routinely impose carceral conditions, subject residents to retaliation, censor speech, evict without due process, and maintain total institutional control over persons whom the state defines as "patients"--not prisoners. These practices mirror incarceration without affording even the minimal procedural protections available to inmates, and thereby violate the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the established doctrine that constitutional rights do not end upon entry into a publicly funded recovery facility. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, appointment of counsel, and class certification to bring an end to the unconstitutional system operating across Louisville, Kentucky and beyond, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently residing in a Medicaid-funded sober living home located in Louisville, Kentucky. Landmark Recovery is a Kentucky-based rehabilitation program receiving state and federal Medicaid funds.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LASHIFY INC: Ragusano Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER RAGUSANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LASHIFY, INC., Case No. 25-STCV11077 (Filed April 15, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 19, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04507 to the proceedings. The complaint purports to bring five causes of action, for violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The Plaintiff alleges that Lashify deceives consumers by advertising "free shipping" on purchases exceeding $75, while simultaneously offering "Package Protection" and "Shipping Protection" fees. The Plaintiff claims that she "used Defendant's website, lashify.com, to purchase over $75 of eyelash related merchandise on June 4, 2023, to be delivered to her residence in Los Angeles, California." In addition, she alleges that her purchase included a "$3.75 charge for a 'Package Protection' fee" even though she alleges she was "informed that she would get free shipping as part of her purchase. Plaintiff justifiably relied on this promise when choosing to make a purchase over $75." The Plaintiff claims that "Defendant deceived Plaintiff and class members into making purchases they otherwise would not make." The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of a putative class of "all consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, paid a 'Package Protection' fee, 'Shipping Protection' fee or other similar fee for a purchase from Lashify."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Farnese, Esq. EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 356-4668 Facsimile: (310) 388-1232 E-mail: pfarnese@ipcounselors.com LENDVIA LLC: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendvia, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Laccinole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lendvia, LLC, Range View Management, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01043-FWS-KES (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Lendvia -- https://lendvia.com/ -- offers personalized personal loan solutions that cater to your specific needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: 323-306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com LEXYL TRAVEL: Canteenwalla Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mr. Percy Canteenwalla and Mr. Giuseppe Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lexyl Travel Technologies, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80007-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of the National Class and the New York Subclass; (2) appointing Plaintiffs Percy Canteenwalla and Giuseppe Russo as the National Class's Representatives; (3) appointing the Plaintiff Giuseppe Russo as the New York Subclass's Representatives; (4) appointing Adam Florek of Florek Law, PLLC and Adam Werner and Michael Hoffman of Werner Hoffman Greig & Garcia, as Class Counsel; and (5) authorizing courtfacilitated notice of this class action to the Classes. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class of: "All individuals and entities that were automatically enrolled in the Defendant's Travel Insurance service at the time of their booking from December 2020 through preliminary approval (the "National Class")." The Plaintiff also seeks certification of a New York subclass of: "All individuals and entities residing in New York that were automatically enrolled in the Defendant's Travel Insurance service at the time of their booking from the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations through preliminary approval (the "New York Subclass")." The Plaintiffs believe that there is sufficient support for class certification at this time; however, discovery is still ongoing and at the time of this Motion, Defendant has neither responded to the documents requests nor Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and the parties have yet to schedule any depositions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request the opportunity to supplement their briefing and defer the response and reply deadlines. The case stems from the Defendant's intentional engagement in businesses practices that fly in the face of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (the "FDUTPA”). Through its network of travel booking websites, Lexyl automatically enrolled Plaintiffs, the Classes, and all of its customers into a paid refund protection program -- touted as an "Upgraded Experience" -- which was really a paid for add-on service. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Jan. 2, 2025, as a result of the Defendant's deceptive trade practices, and seek compensation for the hidden Travel Insurance fees they were charged. Lexyl provides services and resources for traveling. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GXzW0T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Werner, Esq. Michael Hoffman, Esq. WERNER HOFFMAN GREIG & GARCIA 3299 NW 2nd Ave Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (800) 320-4357 E-mail: awerner@wernerhoffman.com mhoffman@wernerhoffman.com - and - Adam Florek, Esq. FLOREK LAW, PLLC 552 Seventh Ave, Suite 601 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (929) 229-2268 E-mail: aflorek@florekllc.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Strong" in Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- LifeStance Health Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the class action lawsuit entitled Strong v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. On April 26, 2023, a class action litigation captioned Strong v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company by a putative class representing users of the Company's website who allege various privacy-related claims premised on the Company's use of pixel technologies on its website. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages. The process of resolving this matter is inherently uncertain and may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the ultimate resolution cannot be predicted. The Company has not recorded any material accruals for loss contingencies and in management's opinion no material range of loss is estimable for this matter as of March 31, 2025. LINDE INC: Townsend Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Townsend, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. LINDE INC., a Delaware corporation; LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2504057 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-01143-KK-SP. The Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition; all in violation of California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Lauren Manso, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: lmanso@littler.com LIVANOVA PLC: $1.2MM Settlement in Cybersecurity Suit Has Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ LivaNova PLC disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has obtained approval of the $1.2 million settlement in the cybersecurity class stui. In connection with the cybersecurity incident initially reported on November 20, 2023, LivaNova USA was named as a defendant in six putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in June and July 2024. Those cases were consolidated in a single action, and the plaintiffs filed against LivaNova USA a consolidated class action complaint, which asserted claims of negligence, breach of contract, and violation of various state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought damages, equitable/injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, among other relief. The parties entered into mediation and agreed to a class action settlement, with respect to which the Company recorded an accrual of $1.2 million during the quarter ended September 30, 2024. The class action settlement received final approval from the court on April 4, 2025. The Company expects all settlement administration activities to be completed in 2025. LIXIL USA: Faces Zuern Suit Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE ZUERN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LIXIL USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-04046 (D.N.J., May 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. In or around January 2025, the Defendant experienced a data breach perpetrated by notorious ransomware group RansomHub. The files RansomHub stole contained the personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and the Class, including names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, and Social Security numbers. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their private information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff is a victim of the data breach and had his PII stolen in the data breach. He is a former employee of the Defendant. LIXIL USA Corporation is a New Jersey-based commercial and residential kitchen and bath products brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Daniel C. Edelman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com dedelman@kgglaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. New Jersey City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com LODI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Camarillo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. The case is styled as Miriam Camarillo, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007037 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. operates as a non-profit health organization. The Hospital provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle Carney, Esq. JANELLE CARNEY-ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 14758 Pipeline Ave., Ste. E Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Phone: 909-521-9609 Fax: 909-393-0471 Email: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com LOPEZ TIRE: Onofre Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ JOEL ONOFRE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. A.J. LOPEZ TIRE SHOP INC (d/b/a A.J. LOPEZ TIRE SHOP), and JUANA GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-02796 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2025) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Onofre regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and at all relevant times failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over 10 hours per day, says the suit. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Lopez Tire is a tire repair shop owned by Juana Gonzalez, located at 852 McDonald Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.[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 LP CONSULTING GROUP: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LP Consulting Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nathan Rowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LP Consulting Group LLC, Lux Dream Vacation Club LLC, RSI Affinity, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-61006-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LP Consulting Group -- https://lpconsultinggroup.org/ -- specializes in providing consulting services focused on sales and marketing strategies, processes, systems, and tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Castaneda Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zulema Castaneda, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01473332-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04434. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action: failure to pay all wages, minimum, overtime, double time, commission wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay earned wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; unfair business practices; and enforcement of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Eric T. Angel, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com eangel@sheppardmullin.com MDL 3035: Class Cert Briefs in Retirement Suit Due June 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra Life Insurance Company's unopposed motion to set briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: The deadline for any briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 6, 2025. The deadline for any reply briefs in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 27, 2025. Newport is an independent provider of retirement services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9gAbCF at no extra charge.[CC] MICRO-MECHANICS INC: Lozano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micro-Mechanics, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Lozano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Micro-Mechanics, Inc., Case No. 25CV466112 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Micro-Mechanics -- https://www.micro-mechanics.com/ -- designs, manufactures and markets high precision parts and tools used in process-critical applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq. WEISENBERG FIRM, PLLC 450 Lexington Ave., 4th Floor New York, NY 10017 MIDLAND STATES: Settles Overdraft Fees Class Suit for $3.1MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Midland States Bank agreed to a $3.1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged unfair overdraft and nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees. The Midland States Bank class action settlement benefits individuals who have or had a checking account with Midland States Bank, Alpine Bank & Trust Co. and/or Centrue Bank and who were charged certain overdraft and NSF fees between April 8, 2012 and April 30, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Midland States Bank charged unfair overdraft fees on transactions that had sufficient funds at the time of authorization but were later charged NSF fees. Plaintiffs also challenge “fee-on-fee” overdraft fees and retry NSF fees assessed after an initial NSF fee. Midland States Bank is a financial institution with over 70 locations in Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Indiana. Midland States Bank has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.1 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Midland States Bank class action settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the settlement fund based on the amount they paid in relevant fees. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of fees each class member was charged and the total number of fees charged to all class members. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 11, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Midland States Bank overdraft fees class action lawsuit settlement is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement payment. Who's Eligible For the Alpine APSN Fee Class, Alpine Bank & Trust Co. personal checking account holders in Illinois who were charged one or more APSN fees between April 8, 2012 and Feb. 28, 2018. For the Alpine Retry Fee Class, Alpine Bank & Trust Co. personal checking account holders in Illinois who were charged one or more retry fees between April 8, 2012, and Feb. 28, 2018. For the Centrue APSN Fee Class, Centrue Bank personal checking account holders in Illinois who were charged one or more APSN fees between April 8, 2012, and June 12, 2017. For the Midland APSN Fee Class, Midland States Bank personal checking account holders in Illinois who were charged one or more APSN fees between April 8, 2012, and April 30, 2022. For the Midland Fees-On-Fees Class, Midland States Bank personal checking account holders in Illinois who were charged one or more fees-on-fees between April 8, 2012, and April 30, 2022. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 09/10/2025 Case Name Garcia, et al. v. Midland States Bank, Case No. 2022-LA-0000104, in the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, Illinois Final Hearing 09/10/2025 Settlement Website GarciaBankFeesSettlement.com Claims Administrator Garcia v. Midland States Bank Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 admin@GarciaBankFeesSettlement.com (833) 419-5090 Class Counsel Lynn Toops COHEN & MALAD LLP Sophia Gold KALIEL GOLD PLLC Jonathan M. Streisfeld KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. Marty Schubert STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel Scott Porterfield BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP [GN] MOBILE TRAILER WORKS: Herrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mobile Trailer Works Inc. The case is styled as Natanael Herrera, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mobile Trailer Works Inc., Case No. 25STCV14674 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 20, 2025). Mobile Trailer Works -- http://www.mobiletrailerworks.com/-- specializes in providing mobile repair and maintenance services for trailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, California 90245 Fax: (424) 292-2355 Phone: (424) 292-2350 Email: arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com MONCLER USA INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moncler USA, Inc. The case is styled as Byanca Rivera, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Moncler USA, Inc., Case No. 25STCV14780 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Moncler S.p.A. -- https://www.moncler.com/en-us/ -- is an Italian luxury fashion brand specialized in ready-to-wear outerwear headquartered in Milan, Italy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Joseph Lavi, Esq. Tims Eric, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com etims@lelawfirm.com MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Schaub Settlement Deal for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------ Mullen Automotive 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 20, 2025, that the Schaub class suit settlement agreement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer (the "Schaub Lawsuit"). The Schaub Lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On September 23, 2022, a court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, Mr. Michery, and the Company’s predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses. On August 14, 2024, the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the securities class action matter subject to payment of $5.4 million by the Company and $1.8 million by the Company's D&O insurers. The settlement is subject to the court's final approval. Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company, headquartered in Brea, California. [BN] MYDIGITALOFFICE.COM LLC: Simkin Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Warren Simkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MyDigitalOffice.com, LLC doing business as: Otelier, Case No. 25-cv-004386 was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02548-SEG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. MyDigitalOffice.com, LLC doing business as Otelier -- https://otelier.io/ -- offer real-time, cloud-based Hotel Management Software products tailored to track, analyze, and automate critical aspects of hotel operations that impact your bottom line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (678) 928-4479 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com jalonso@alonsowirth.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Freedom Building Ste 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John P. Hutchins, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP-ATL 1170 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 946-9812 Fax: (404) 459-5734 Email: jhutchins@bakerlaw.com NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sutton Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:25-cv-00751 (E.D. Mo., May 22, 2025) is a class action against NCU for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information of Plaintiff and Class members, including at least names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, driver's license information, and credit/debit card information. According to the complaint, between September 20, 2024, and September 21, 2024, NCU detected that an unauthorized third party had gained access to NCU's network systems and obtained files containing the PII of NCU's current and former members, including Plaintiff (the "Data Breach"). NCU owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. NCU breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its current and former members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of NCU's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed. The action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, which occurred between September 20, 2024, and September 21, 2024. Plaintiff Sutton is a citizen of Missouri and a member of NCU. The Plaintiff believed NCU had implemented and maintained reasonable security and practices to protect his PII. NCU is a credit union that was formed on March 16, 1928, in St. Louis, Missouri. 1 The company now claims to be "one of the largest and strongest credit unions in Missouri." In the regular course of its business, NCU collects and maintains the PII of its members, including Plaintiff and Class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM LLC 14824 West Clayton Road, Suite 24 St. Louis, MO 63017 Telephone: (314) 504-0979 Facsimile: (314) 594-5950 E-mail: js@molawgroup.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Wade Due June 6 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATON), Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra Life Insurance Company's unopposed motion to set briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel: The deadline for any briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 6, 2025. The deadline for any reply briefs in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is June 27, 2025. Newport is an independent provider of retirement services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hj0nJC at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by June 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiBenedetto, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-07353 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 5, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order directing the parties to file a Joint Status Report on or before June 6, 2025, indicating the status of the Romano class certification motion. The nature of suit states Real Property --Tort Product Liability. Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense company.[CC] NY GEORGE'S: Vizcaino Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- LAURA VALENTINA LEON-VIZCAINO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NY GEORGE'S CATERING CORP. d/b/a MAMA PISCO KITCHEN BAR and CARLOS ANDRES SERNA, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-02902 (E.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025) seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime wages for weeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours, spread of hours pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff was not paid the appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay, or overtime wages despite working in excess of 40 hours each week, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff first worked in the Defendants' company as a waitress, and was later promoted to assistant manager. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant specializing in Peruvian cuisine which is known as Mama Pisco Kitchen Bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com OAKES FARMS: Scalia Balks at Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Tip Pool ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH SCALIA and SAMANTHA SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OAKES FARMS, INC., and SEED TO TABLE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00387-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had a policy and practice of deleting hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek to avoid the payment of overtime wages. The Plaintiffs also allege Defendants violated the state law by requiring them and other similarly situated employees to participate in an unlawful tip pool while also taking the tip credit. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants working in the position of bartenders, servers, and barbacks. The Defendants operate a full-service grocery store in Naples, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. Peter M. Jennings, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com Peter@GunterFirm.com ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Roberts Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGEANN ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY, LLC d/b/a ONSITE WOMEN'S HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-11427 (D. Mass., May 20, 2025) arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from OWH's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its patients' personal identifying information, including private information. According to the complaint, the Data Breach compromised and exposed patients' Private Information. OWH failed to protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PII/PHI therefore, Plaintiff's and Class Members have been exposed to actual harm consistent with the litany of injuries that data breaches cause. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action, seeking to recover damages and non-monetary relief, as well as any other relief this Court may deem just and proper, as a result of Defendant's actions and/or nonactions that led and/or allowed the Data Breach to have occurred. In providing medical care to patients from across the country, OWH collects a significant amount of data -- including its patients' personal identifiable information such as names and dates of birth, as well as health information including medical treatment and/or procedure information, provider location and provide name. OWH collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its patients' extremely sensitive Private Information -- and it assumes a significant duty to protect that information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tucker Merrigan, Esq. Brett R. Corson, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN 268 Summer Street, LL Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (413) 424-1511 E-mail: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com brc@sweeneymerrigan.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg. Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ONTRAK INC: Continues to Defend Farhar Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ontrak 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 20, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Farhar securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed in the same court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02460. On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions under the Farhar case ("Consolidated Class Action"), appointed Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleged that the Company and Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and misleading statements and omissions in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. Specifically, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Company was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP"). Lead plaintiff alleged that defendants: (1) misrepresented to investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its vendors; (2) failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the CAP; and (3) failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff sought certification of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4, et seq. The motion was taken under submission, with no oral argument. Prior to any ruling being issued on the motion to dismiss, on March 29, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint (1) added Jonathan Mayhew as a defendant; (2) expanded the purported class period to August 5, 2020 through August 19, 2021; and (3) included allegations that the defendants additionally intentionally or recklessly made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's relationship with its then-second largest customer, Cigna, in various press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on May 6, 2021 and August 5, 2021. On May 15, 2023, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 2, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety and providing lead plaintiff leave to amend. On March 5, 2024, lead plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint, which asserted the same claims, against the same defendants for the same purported class period. On March 19, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On September 3, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, lead plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal. On January 31, 2025, lead plaintiff filed his Opening Brief; the Company filed its Answering Brief on April 2, 2025. Plaintiff's optional responsive brief is due May 23, 2025. The Company believes that the allegations lack merit and intends to defend against any appeal vigorously. Ontrak, Inc. is an artificial intelligence powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a platform that provides claim-based analytics and predictive modeling to provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized treatment program. ORACLE CORPORATION: Agbunag Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rachel Agbunag, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 25-CIV-02618 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04230-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Oracle Corporation -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a multinational computer technology company known for its database software and cloud services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5374 Fax: (213) 443-5400 Email: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com ORGANON & CO: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Organon class action lawsuit -- captioned Hauser v. Organon & Co., No. 25-cv-05322 (D.N.J.) -- seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers of Organon & Co. (NYSE: OGN) securities and charges Organon as well as certain of Organon's top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Organon class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-organon-co-class-action-lawsuit-ogn.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Organon class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 22, 2025. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Organon develops and delivers health solutions through prescription therapies and medical devices. The Organon class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the class period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants concealed material information pertaining to Organon's capital allocation priorities, particularly the future of the quarterly dividend payout; (ii) in truth, Organon's optimistic reports of the dividend payout as Organon's "number one priority" were offset by Organon's newly implemented debt reduction strategy, thus, leading to a drastic decrease -- over 70% -- of the quarterly dividend; and (iii) Organon planned to prioritize debt reduction following Organon's acquisition of Dermavant Sciences Ltd. The Organon class action lawsuit further alleges that on May 1, 2025, Organon reported first quarter 2025 financial results and announced that management reset Organon's dividend payout from $0.28 to $0.02. On this news, the price of Organon stock fell more than 27%, according to the complaint. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Organon securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Organon class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Organon class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Organon class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Organon class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] OS RESTAURANT: Yarbrough Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tremayne Yarbrough, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC doing business as: Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar; Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03225 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-04146-PHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. OS Restaurant Services, LLC doing business as Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar -- https://www.flemingssteakhouse.com/ -- is an American fine dining steakhouse restaurant chain owned and operated by Bloomin' Brands, headquartered in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. James Ross Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com clucio@farnaeslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Spencer Stephen Turpen, Esq. Michael J. Nader, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 840-3150 Fax: (916) 840-3159 Email: spencer.turpen@ogletree.com michael.nader@ogletree.com PAULA'S CHOICE: Roblyer Files Skincare Products Mislabeling Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAITLYN ROBLYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAULA'S CHOICE, INC.; PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC; and, CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00606 (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) arises from the unlawful marketing and labeling of Defendant's skincare products in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, Paula's Choice's products are marketed and labeled with the express, unqualified representation that they are "Made in USA," (or similar terminology), on a prominent and conspicuous location on the product label as well as in their marketing. This claim appears on and/or regarding nearly every product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Defendant, including the product purchased by the Plaintiff. But contrary to Defendant's express representations and its failure to clearly and adequately qualify those representations, the product purchased by Plaintiff is substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign ingredients. The Product is made with numerous ingredients and components, that are not grown, sourced or otherwise made in the United States, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased one of Paula's Choice's best known products, its 2% BHA Liquid Exfoliant, which is labeled, marketed and sold to consumers as "Made in USA." Paula's Choice, Inc. is a skincare company with a principal place of business in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com PENSKE LOGISTICS: Cervantes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penske Logistics, LLC. The case is styled as Jesus Cervantes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Penske Logistics, LLC, Case No. 25STCV14401 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Penske Logistics -- https://www.penskelogistics.com/ -- offers state-of-the-art transportation and distribution solutions to help you stay on track and avoid supply chain disruptions..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PERFECT JEAN: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Perfect Jean, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05066 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://theperfectjean.nyc, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inadequate focus order, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Perfect Jean's policies, practices, and procedures to that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Perfect Jean, LLC operates the website that offers clothing for men, including jeans, shorts, pants, polos, shirts, and hoodies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PHARUS FUNDING: Harrington FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Harrington, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Pharus Funding LLC, Noam J. Cohen, P.A., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22301-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pharus Funding Partners -- https://pharusdebt.com/ -- is a direct loan broker and a one stop shop for almost all of your small business and commercial financing needs.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Ernest Henry Kohlmyer, III, Esq. ZIMMERMAN, KISER & SUTCLIFFE, P.A. 315 E Robinson St., Suite 600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 425-7010 Email: SKohlmyer@zkslaw.com PRE-PAID LEGAL: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Wesley Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc., Does 1 through 20, Case No. 25CV122162 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., May 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. -- https://www.legalshield.com/ -- is a company that operates as a law firm under the name LegalShield.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Anthony J. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 3900 W Alameda, 15th Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (213) 444-1973 Email: Jon@lebelaw.com Tony@lebelaw.com PREMIER INSURANCE: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Insurance Benefits, LLC. The case is styled as Sara Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Premier Insurance Benefits, LLC d/b/a Best Insurance Group, Case No. 3:25-cv-00079-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Premier Insurance & Benefits Group Inc. -- https://premierbenefits.com/ -- offers all lines of personal and commercial insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq. 600 Blankenham Ct. Johns Creek, GA 30022 Phone: (404) 276-7277 Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com PRO PROPERTY: Barrios Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR BARRIOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRO PROPERTY RENO INC, MACARENA MAS and NELSON MAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02690 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking from Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges that Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Members and Class Members for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from June 2024 until September 17, 2024. Pro Property Reno Inc. is a construction company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (718) 971-0326 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com PROCTORU INC: McDowell Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Katrina McDowell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ProctorU, Inc. doing business as: Meazure Learning, Case No. 5:25-cv-00705 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04259-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ProctorU Inc. -- https://www.proctoru.com/ -- is a leading provider of online proctoring services, ensuring the integrity of online exams and assessments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Tamiko Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 365-3225 Email: lomoto@faruqilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq. ESBROOK LAW LLC 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 319-7681 Email: christopher.esbrook@esbrooklaw.com - and - Darin T. Beffa, Esq. BEFFA LAW 445 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (424) 262-3332 Email: darin@beffalaw.com - and - Stephen R. Brown, Esq. ESBROOK P.C. 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1930 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 319-7686 Email: stephen.brown@esbrook.com - and - Emma Leheny, Esq. POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: (202) 670-1094 Email: eleheny@potomaclaw.com READY CAPITAL: Wyk Sues Over Securities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Menno Van Wyk and Brian Russell, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. READY CAPITAL CORPORATION, THOMAS E. CAPASSE, ANDREW AHLBORN, JACK J. ROSS, FRANK P. FILIPPS, MEREDITH MARSHALL, DOMINIQUE MIELLE, GILBERT E. NATHAN, ANDREA PETRO, J. MITCHELL REESE, TODD M. SINAI, JEFFREY B. PYATT, NEVIN BOPARAI, WATERFALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, and BRP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 25-2-14038-5 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., May 8, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of Ready Capital common stock pursuant to the S-4 registration statement, 424B3 prospectus, related oral communications, along with any and all drafts, versions, amendments thereto and additional materials incorporated therein (collectively, the "Registration Statement" or "Offering Materials") issued in connection with the May 31, 2023 transaction by which Ready Capital, a real estate investment trust ("REIT"), acquired Broadmark, a Seattle-based REIT (the "Merger") in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act" or "Securities Act"). In connection with the Merger, Ready Capital solicited and sold a total of 62,229,623 common shares directly to former Broadmark stockholders, as follows: Broadmark stockholders received 0.47233 shares of Ready Capital common stock in direct exchange for each Broadmark share they owned just prior to the Merger close. All of these newly issued shares of Ready Capital common stock were registered, solicited, and sold directly to Plaintiffs and other former Broadmark shareholders pursuant to the Offering Materials. The Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact, materially incomplete and misleading statements, and omitted material facts that were both required by governing regulations and necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. The Offering Materials also misrepresented that Ready Capital employed methods for determining the current expected credit loss ("CECL") across its loan portfolio in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses. ASC 326 in recent years has replaced the allowance for loan loss model within Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). Ready Capital's failure to comply with ASC 326 also rendered the Company's 2022 financial statements, incorporated by the Registration Statement, materially misleading. Ready Capital's plummeting distribution rate and announcements of loan write-offs have led to large declines in its share price, including a 26.8% decline on March 3, 2025, the day the Company reported its year-end 2024 financial results and announced that it was reducing its shareholder distribution rate. Since the Merger, the Company's share price has declined by as much as 58.9%. By this action, Broadmark's former stockholders seek to recover the losses they suffered as a result of Defendants' violations of the Securities Act in connection with the Merger, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs directly acquired shares of Ready Capital common stock in the Merger pursuant to the Registration Statement. Ready Capital Corporation is a multi-strategy real estate finance company that originates, acquires, finances and services small to medium balance commercial ("SBC") loans, small business administration loans, residential mortgage loans, and mortgage-backed securities collateralized primarily by SBC loans, or other real estate-related investments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992 Email: jdennett@tousley.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415.981.4800 Facsimile: 415.981.4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com - and - David W. Hall, Esq. THE HALL FIRM, LTD. Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 Email: dhall@hallfirmltd.com REAL BROKERAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miholich Due June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miholich v. The Real Brokerage, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01038 (S.D. Cal., Filed June 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Application for Temporary Extension of Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification due to Plaintiff's pending Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the Court extends the current May 22, 2025 deadline for filing the Motion for Class Certification to June 6, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant is a real estate brokerage company headquartered in Miami, Florida.[CC] RED CAT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Cat Holdings, Inc. ("Red Cat" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RCAT) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 25-cv- 05427, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Red Cat securities between March 18, 2022 and January 15, 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 Red Cat securities during the Class Period, you have until July 22, 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. Red Cat, together with its subsidiaries, provides various products, services, and solutions to the United States ("U.S.") drone industry. The Company's products include, inter alia, the "Teal 2" drone, a small, unmanned aircraft system ("sUAS") designed to purportedly "Dominate the Night" during nighttime military operations. Red Cat manufactures its drones through its subsidiary Teal Drones, Inc. ("Teal") at a facility located in Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Salt Lake City Facility"). Throughout 2022, Defendants touted their development of the Salt Lake City Facility's capacity to produce "thousands of drones per month" or "tens of thousands of drones" per year. In March 2022, Red Cat announced that Teal had been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Unit and the U.S. Army to compete in Tranche 2 of the U.S. Army's Short Range Reconnaissance Program of Record (the "SRR Program"). The SRR Program is a U.S. Army initiative to provide a small, rucksack-portable sUAS to U.S. Army platoons. At all relevant times, Defendants suggested or otherwise asserted that the SRR Program's Tranche 2 contract (the "SRR Contract") was worth potentially hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars in contract revenues. In March 2023, Company management confirmed that "[t]he Salt Lake City factory is complete and ready to go" and "[w]e now have the capacity to produce thousands of drones per month." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity, and Defendants' progress in developing the same, was overstated; (ii) the overall value of the SRR Contract was overstated; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 27, 2023, Red Cat hosted a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its financial and operating results for its fiscal year 2023. During the call, Defendants revealed that the Salt Lake City Facility could only currently produce 100 drones per month, and that the facility was still being built, refined, and expanded. Red Cat filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the same day, which likewise reported that construction of the facility was only "substantially completed" and potentially could reach a production capacity of one thousand drones per month over the next 2 to 3 years, but only with additional capital investments and manufacturing efficiencies realized. Following these disclosures, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.10 per share, or 8.93%, to close at $1.02 per share on July 28, 2023. On September 23, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of its fiscal year 2025. Among other results, the Company reported losses per share of $0.17, missing consensus estimates by $0.09, and revenue of $2.8 million, missing consensus estimates by $1.07 million. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss these results, Company management disclosed that Red Cat had spent "the past four months . . . retooling [the Salt Lake City Facility] and preparing for high volume production[,]" while admitting that a "pause in manufacturing of Teal 2 and building our Army prototypes impacted Teal 2 sales" because, inter alia, Red Cat "couldn't produce and sell Teal 2 units[] while retooling [its] factory." On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $0.80 per share, or 25.32%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $2.36 per share on September 25, 2024. On November 19, 2024, Red Cat issued a press release announcing that it had won the SRR Contract. On a subsequent conference call that Red Cat hosted with investors and analysts the same day to discuss the contract win, Defendants continued to assert that the SRR Contract was worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, while expressing their confidence that Red Cat could realize up to $50 million to $79.5 million in revenue from the SRR Contract during it fiscal year 2025 alone. Then, on January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital ("Kerrisdale") published a report (the "Kerrisdale Report") alleging, inter alia, that Defendants had overstated the value of the SRR Contract, which Kerrisdale found was only worth approximately $20 million to $25 million based on U.S. Army budget documents. The Kerrisdale Report also alleged that Defendants had been misleading investors about the Salt Lake City Facility's production capacity for years, while also raising concerns about the timing of executive departures and insider transactions that took place shortly after Red Cat announced it had won the SRR Contract. On this news, Red Cat's stock price fell $2.35 per share, or 21.54%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $8.56 per share on January 17, 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. [GN] RELIANSE OSUNA: Almoukdad Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Mazen Almoukdad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIANSE OSUNA NM LLC, RELIANSE GLOBAL LLC, HARESH SURTI, Case No. 1:25-cv-00461 (D.N.M., May 16, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), to recover the unpaid minimum wages and other damages owed to these workers. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay the Day Rate Worker' minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages to these employees was neither reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay minimum wages made in good faith. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and all those who are similarly situated are entitled to minimum wages plus liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Operations Manager from April 2023 until January 2024. The Defendants are an investment management company that hires contractors to perform constructions on their properties, including hotels, throughout the United States, including in Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal REPUBLIC BAR: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Sabana Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MAURILIO TOJ SABANA, YONQUER BARRIOS, and JOSEFA YAGUI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REPUBLIC BAR AND LOUNGE INC. (d/b/a REPUBLIC LATIN FUSION), SYED HOSSIN and CHRISTIAN ALMONT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02674 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that they have worked. Rather, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked and have failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, and have repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are present employees of Defendants Republic Bar and Lounge Inc. (d/b/a/ Republic Latin Fusion), Syed Hossin and Christian Almont. Republic Bar and Lounge is a upscale Latin fusion bar and restaurant owned by Syed Hossin and Christian Almont, located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 ROBESON HEALTH: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Suit for $750,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Robeson Health Care Corporation has agreed to pay a $750,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged a February 2023 cyberattack compromised the personal information of roughly 62,627 people. The Robeson Health Care settlement, which received preliminary court approval on March 25, 2025, covers all individuals who were notified that their personally identifiable information (PII) was potentially compromised in the February 2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the Robeson class action settlement can be found at RHCCDataIncidentSettlement.com. Robeson Health Care Corporation class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive through the settlement credit monitoring and either expense reimbursement of up to $2,500 for out-of-pocket losses, or an alternative cash payment of $50. To submit a claim online, head to this page and enter your Notice ID and Confirmation code, both of which can be found in your personalized class action settlement notice. To submit a claim form via mail, download the PDF of the Robeson Health Care claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to: Robeson Health Care Corp. Settlement, Attn: Claim Forms, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. All claim forms for the Robeson Health Care settlement must be submitted online or by mail by August 6, 2025. Data breach expenses eligible for reimbursement through the settlement include costs and fees related to obtaining credit reports, credit freezes or over-limit fees, and unreimbursed postage, mileage and other incidental costs. Claims for expense reimbursement must be submitted with supporting documentation, such as receipts. No additional documentation is required to receive an alternative cash payment, the settlement website shares. It is important to note that either of these reimbursement amounts may be decreased on a pro rata based on the total number of valid claims filed. Additionally, all class members are eligible to enroll in two years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, for which the settlement administrator will send all participating class members an activation code for the service by either email or U.S. mail. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the class action settlement at a hearing on July 21, 2025. In the event that the settlement receives final approval and all appeals are resolved, compensation will begin to be distributed to eligible Robeson class members. The Robeson Health Care Corporation class action lawsuit alleged that a cyberattack occurred in February 2023 and resulted in a data breach that compromised company files containing clients' personal information such as Social Security numbers, names, addresses, dates of birth, and healthcare information. [GN] ROCKET COMPANIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 29, 2021 and April 1, 2021. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Rocket Companies stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=149639&wire=1&utm_campaign=27 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 29, 2021 and April 1, 2021. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Rocket Companies stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=149835&wire=1&utm_campaign=29 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] RYVYL INC: Continues to Defend Cullen Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- RYVYL 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 20, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from Company continues to defend itself from Cullen class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 1, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Cullen v. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against several defendants, including the Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers (the "Cullen Defendants"). The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023. The complaint alleged that the Cullen Defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial controls, performance and prospects. On June 30, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 1, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, which included dismissing all Securities Act claims and narrowing the potential class period. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 30, 2024, which alleges claims against the Cullen Defendants under Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) only and a class period of May 13, 2021 through January 20, 2023. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 1, 2024. On October 21, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The scope of the remaining claims is consistent with the Court's last motion to dismiss decision dated March 1, 2024. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, which asserts the same legal causes of action and proposed class period as the previous complaint. On February 28, 2025, the Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") that reflects their agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted in this class action. Lead Plaintiff has begun the process of drafting the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and exhibits thereto, which, after negotiation and execution by the Parties, will be filed with the Court in connection with Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Parties intend to move for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement as soon as practicable after the final settlement agreement is executed. There is no assurance, however, that the settlement will be completed and/or that the Court will approve it. The Cullen Defendants continue to deny any and all liability and allegations set forth in the pending Third Amended Complaint. RYVYL Inc. is a financial technology company that develops, markets, and sells innovative blockchain-based payment solutions, which offer significant improvements for the payment solutions marketplace. SARGON ISAAC: Judge Grants Initial Nod in Tenant Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Harrison, writing for Evanston Roundtable, reports that a group of tenants have reached a settlement in their long-running class action suit against landlord Sargon Isaac, but only after a judge nearly sanctioned Isaac for alleged "unnecessary delays" in actually signing the agreement. Initially filed by three former tenants of Isaac's Evanston properties in December 2021, the case has since snowballed into a consolidated group of four lawsuits and a fifth pending suit with 15 named plaintiffs who rented from Isaac in Evanston and Chicago. Each one makes similar accusations that the landlord violated the two cities' Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinances as well as state and federal law by failing to properly maintain the tenants' apartment buildings and retaliating against those who complained. Cook County Judge Patrick Stanton gave preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on May 8. Under the terms of the agreement, anyone who rented from Isaac in Evanston or Chicago for at least 30 straight days between March 3, 2018, and May 8, 2025, is eligible to claim one of three options for a monetary settlement: 1. A cash payment of $350. 2. For current Isaac tenants, a rent credit of $700 toward a current or future balance. 3. For former Isaac tenants who still owe rent or other fees, a credit of up to $700 toward their balance. Additionally, all but one of the named plaintiffs will receive $16,333.33 each, and both the plaintiffs and claimants can request any eviction actions brought against them by Isaac be sealed. Finally, Isaac is required to contract a property manager for his Evanston and Chicago properties within 60 days of the court's final approval, which is currently scheduled for Sept. 10. In an email to the RoundTable, plaintiff attorney Sheryl Weikal wrote that she and her clients are "gratified" to reach a settlement that "improves the quality of housing" by requiring greater property management. "Everyone deserves stable and decent housing, and this settlement goes a long way to realizing housing as a human right for everyone in Evanston," Weikal wrote. "There is still a lot of work to be done, but this settlement is a major step towards true housing security for all Evanstonians." She also hopes "every eligible class member will take advantage" of the settlement's benefits. Known eligible claimants will be sent notice of the settlement via mail and email by May 29, and must submit their claims by July 17. Isaac and his attorney did not respond to emails requesting comment on this story. Isaac owns about 73 units in Evanston, of which 57 are in the city's Fifth Ward. Sanctions moved settlement forward Though the settlement is moving forward now, court filings indicate it had been on the verge of approval for over two years while Isaac held out on signing it, only moving forward after the court set a short deadline under threat of financial penalties and other sanctions. Weikal filed a motion requesting those sanctions on March 28, writing that over two years after mediation was held in fall 2022, the case was still hung up on Isaac's request for more time to sign the agreement. "Even after Defendants' counsel agreed to terms on multiple occasions, Defendants have refused to actually sign the settlement agreement or agree to move for preliminary approval," Weikal wrote. "Either Defendants will settle this case, or they will not, but there should and must be a cost imposed for the endless delays based on what can only be termed as bad faith promises Defendants never had any intention of honoring." She argued Isaac's goal "is evidently to delay this case as much as possible in hopes the Plaintiffs will go away," noting that one of the plaintiffs, Tracy Williams, passed away while the lawsuit was pending. Her estate is now listed as a plaintiff, represented by her children. In all, Weikal asked Judge Stanton to order Isaac and his attorney to justify why their inaction didn't rise to being in contempt of the court, rule in her clients' favor by default or restrict Isaac from introducing evidence at trial, and charge Isaac for all attorney fees and costs incurred since May 2023, when she first sent discovery requests that remained unanswered. Isaac objected to the requests, but Stanton sided with Weikal and the tenants and put the landlord on a two-day notice. The judge ordered on April 2 that unless Isaac delivered a signed copy of the settlement agreement to Weikal by 5 p.m. on April 4, he would have to pay the tenants for attorney fees and other costs. The settlement agreement, jointly signed by all parties, was filed with the court on April 4. [GN] SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Agrees to Settle Privacy Suit for $8.25MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that SelectQuote Insurance Service has agreed to pay up to $8.25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the company unlawfully shared consumers' personal data with Facebook and TikTok through tracking technology embedded into SelectQuote.com. The court-approved website for the SelectQuote class action settlement can be found at SQDataSettlement.com. The settlement agreement, which received preliminary court approval in March 2025, covers a class of approximately 900,000 people who provided their information on SelectQuote.com for the purpose of obtaining an insurance quote during the following periods: -- Between October 17, 2019 and October 17, 2023 for Florida residents; -- Between October 17, 2020 and October 17, 2023 for California, Maryland and Massachusetts residents; and -- Between October 17, 2021 and October 17, 2023 for all other consumers. According to the SelectQuote settlement website, class members who file a valid claim form online or by mail by July 31, 2025 are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $20 per person. SelectQuote settlement payouts may be reduced on a pro rata basis if needed, depending on the total number of valid claims that are submitted, the site says. You can file a SelectQuote settlement claim form online on this page. If you prefer to file by mail, you can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return, or you may request a paper copy by contacting the settlement administrator. To submit a claim form online, you will need your unique Notice ID and confirmation code, which can be found on the personalized settlement notice you may have received by mail or email. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on July 29, 2025. SelectQuote settlement payments will be distributed to eligible class members only if the court ultimately approves the deal, and after any appeals are resolved, the website notes. The class action lawsuit against SelectQuote claimed the company violated consumers' protected privacy rights by incorporating tracking tools into its website, including the Meta and TikTok pixels, that illegally disclosed visitors' web usage and personal health information to the social media giants. [GN] SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance Services Incorporated. The case is styled as Jonathan Bahr, on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance Services Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-01703-MTM (D. Ariz., May 19, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com SERVICEAIDE INC: Barclay Sues Over Data Security Incident --------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Barclay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICEAIDE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-04278 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2025), is brought arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant Serviceaide (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals associated i.e., the putative Class Members ("Class"), who are patients of Catholic Health, which is a customer of Defendant Serviceaide. According to its Breach Notice, on November 15, 2024, Serviceaide learned that "certain information within its Catholic Health Elasticsearch database was inadvertently made publicly available." Following an internal investigation, Defendant determined that between September 19, 2024 and November 5, 2024, certain highly sensitive Catholic Health patient information was made publicly available. Although Defendant asserts that it has no evidence that information was copied, it is "unable to rule out this type of activity." In other words, Defendant's cyber and data security systems were so completely inadequate that they permitted Plaintiff's and the Class's highly private Private Information to be publicly available for 47 days. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted employment. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant Serviceaide's computer network in a condition vulnerable to public exposure, exfiltration, and cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach dated May 9, 2025. Serviceaide is a company that provides its clients with "Agentic AI-powered Agents" to "streamline operations, boost efficiency, and drive innovation."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben A. Aguirre, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: raguirre@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com SERVICEAIDE INC: Faces Class Suits Due to Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- The Silicon Valley Voice reports that a flurry of class action lawsuits against a South Bay digital tech management company landed Monday, May 19, in federal court after a data breach allegedly exposed the personal, medical and insurance information of nearly half a million people. Santa Clara-based Serviceaide Inc. provides digital management services to many health care providers and other clients, using AI chatbots that serve as virtual agents to handle routine customer questions and requests without human intervention. According to the court filings, a massive data leak -- discovered by Serviceaide in November 2024 -- compromised the personal data for 480,000 patients of Catholic Health Systems Inc., a New York health care provider and one of Serviceaide's clients. The filings allege that Serviceaide failed to disclose the breach to the affected people until May 9, even though the leaked data included, for some of the affected people, names and Social Security numbers as well as insurance and medical information. Once the Serviceaide breach was revealed, class action lawyers throughout the country sprang into action. There has been a surge in data breach lawsuits since 2020, and such cases have become a regular stable for plaintiffs' law firms. The first suit was filed by a Chicago class action law firm seeking damages as well as injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of current and former patients of Catholic Health who had sensitive information leaked, exposing them to possible financial fraud or identity theft. A Fort Lauderdale law firm weighed in, seeking to represent the same class. Its court filing emphasized the significance of the breach. It quoted data from a 2017 survey of people who had been victimized by identity theft. The complaint alleges that 75 percent of the victims reported feeling "severely distressed" from the theft and 37 percent feared for the financial safety of family members. The survey also reported 15 percent of the victims had a personal relationship that ended or was "severely and negatively" affected, and 7 percent felt suicidal. A barrage of six class action lawsuits landed. One was from Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, a national plaintiffs' class action firm headquartered in New York, though the suit was filed by lawyers in its San Diego office. Milberg touts having recovered more than $50 billion for its clients since its founding in 1965. More cases followed from law firms based in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Santa Barbara. All of the cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, a popular venue for data breach cases because of California's robust consumer protection laws. Serviceaide is also headquartered in the district. The new cases will likely be handled as a group and the law firms will jockey for roles in the collective litigation. If the cases get traction and a class of plaintiffs seems likely to be approved by a judge, lead counsel will be selected and the firms will coordinate their work until the matter is ultimately resolved by settlement or trial. A July 2024 newsletter authored by Balanced Bridge Funding, a financial firm that funds law firms and lawsuits, notes, "Class action lawsuits are resulting in massive settlements, which in turn are resulting in large contingency fees for the lawyers who represent class members. Data breach lawsuits are a new source of revenue for lawyers, and we can expect to see this trend continue indefinitely." While data breaches in many industries are harmful to consumers, breaches involving data collected by health care providers raise particularly serious issues. Health care data is protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and because of the sensitivity of the data, violations carry with them the potential for fines and heavy damages. The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services keeps a tracker that follows open investigations into data breaches at health care organizations and business associates like Serviceaide. The tracker lists 803 open investigations involving health care breaches in the last two years. California has 51 open investigations on the list involving household names like Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Blue Shield of California, and Catholic Charities CYO of The Archdiocese of San Francisco. The tracker lists the number of individuals affected by each breach. The Serviceaide breach is the fifth-largest incident on the California list by that measure with 480,000, comfortably behind an April 2024 network incident at Kaiser (13,400,000) and an April 9, 2025 breach at Blue Shield (4,700,000). The tracker shows that the total number of affected individuals in California from the breaches is more than 23 million. If overlaps are ignored, the number represents more than half of the state's residents. Many of the new lawsuits emphasized the length of delay between discovery of the breach in November 2024 and the notice letter that Serviceaide sent to affected customers on May 9. They also criticized the content of the letter itself as a grossly inadequate response in light of the severity of the problems that such a breach may cause. One of the complaints says that sensitive personal information is one of the most valuable commodities on the criminal information black market and may garner as much as $1,000 per person. Another alleges that once such sensitive information is sold, it "is often used to gain access to various areas of the victim's digital life, including bank accounts, social media, credit card, and tax details. This can lead to additional private information being harvested from the victim, as well as private information from family, friends and colleagues of the original victim." According to the lawsuits, Serviceaide's letter does not begin to address the harm caused by the breach. The letter -- apparently the same letter was sent to everyone -- begins by assuring recipients that "the confidentiality, privacy, and security of personal information within our care are among Serviceaide's highest priorities." It then says, "we are offering credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for twelve (12) months . . . at no cost to you." (It cautions however that enrollment would not be automatic, and affected customers need to enroll themselves.) The letter closes by advising individuals affected by the breach "to remain vigilant against incidents of identity theft and fraud" and ends with the statement, "We sincerely regret any inconvenience or concern this event may cause you." An invitation to comment on the litigation was not immediately accepted by Serviceaide. [GN] SERVICEAIDE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Raymond Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC RAYMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICEAIDE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-04327 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant publicly disclosed on May 9, 2025 (the Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On November 15, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a suspicious activity on its Catholic Health Elasticsearch database. Upon detection, the Defendant initiated an investigation into the nature and scope of the event. The investigation determined that certain patient information from Catholic Health was publicly available between September 19 and November 5, 2024. The Defendant then conducted a thorough and comprehensive review to determine the exact type of information compromised as well as identify the individuals affected. On March 20, 2025, Defendant identified people whose sensitive data was included in the Data Breach and started sending out notice letters to the impacted individuals. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their Private Information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, alleges the suit. The Defendant is a software development company that specializes in agentic AI solutions for workflow automation, IT support, and cross-team integration and is the provider of information technology support management services to Catholic Health. Defendant is headquartered in San Jose, California. As part of their operations, the Defendant collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive Private Information belonging to Catholic Health's patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com SERVICEAIDE INC: Thompson Files Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serviceaide, Inc. The case is styled as Kylie Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Serviceaide, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-04272-SVK (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. ServiceAide -- https://www.serviceaide.com/ -- is providing the latest AI and Automation innovations to Service and Support Management (ITSM and ESM) for businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pressure Cookers ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICK TSCHERNJAWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHARKNINJA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11494-AK (D. Mass., May 23, 2025) alleges that despite widespread popularity, the multi-function pressure cookers were defectively designed, as the pressure lid could be opened while the unit was still pressurized, leading to the sudden release of hot contents which has led to over one-hundred reported burn injuries. SharkNinja touted these Products as revolutionary kitchen appliances, combining multiple cooking functions into a single unit. Marketed as an all-in-one solution, the Products aimed to simplify meal preparation by integrating pressure cooking, air frying, slow cooking, and more. The Plaintiff brings suit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, to seek compensation and injunctive relief to fully compensate all consumers who purchased the Products and stop SharkNinja's ongoing failure to fully remedy the Defect and protect consumers from the dangers of using the Products. SharkNinja manufactures, markets and sells kitchen appliances for home use, including a line of multi-function pressure cookers called the Foodi OP300 Series.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C. 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor No. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 Facsimile: (888) 410 0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 Facsimile: (215) 567-8333 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com SIMPLY RIGHT: Contreras Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simply Right. The case is styled as Enrique Ruiz Contreras, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Simply Right, Case No. ECU004089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Imperial Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." SimplyRight -- https://www.simplyrightinc.com/ -- is a nationwide company with over 30 years of experience providing virtually all aspects of commercial and industrial cleaning services.[BN] SOFI TECHNOLOGIES: Shah Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sofi Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Vishal Shah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sofi Technologies, Inc., Does 1 to 50 Inclusive, Case No. CGC25625503 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SoFi Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.sofi.com/ -- is an American personal finance and financial technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: jeff@tomorrowlaw.com SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: McKever Seeks to Certify Savings Plan Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY MCKEVER and DANA J. BELVIY, on behalf of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06170-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying all claims in the action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1). The Plaintiffs move that the class be defined as follows: "All person who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southeastern Savings Plan at any time between Oct. 23, 2018 and the present who were invested in the in the T. Rowe Price Small Cap Class A, Spectrum Class A, Value, Strategic Balanced, Strategic Growth, or Mid Cap Growth funds; T. Rowe Price Retire Tr B or F investments; Dodge & Cox Intl Stock Fund Class I, or PIMCO All Asset Class I Fund." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint them as the representatives of this class. Finally, the Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint the law firms of Morgan and Morgan P.A., McKay Law, LLC, and Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and appoint Laruen H. Carroway, Esq. of the law firm Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as local class counsel. Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload (LTL) trucking company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B3JgRK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lauren Heath Carroway, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 1544 Fording Island Road, Suite A Hilton Head, SC 29926 Telephone: (854) 222-6075 E-mail: LCarroway@forthepeople.com MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave. Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: MMcKay@mckaylaw.us SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Braddy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Braddy, Francisco Lopez, Kyle Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 25STCV14644 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for Violations of California Labor Code, Minimum Wage Order, and the California Business & Professions Code for Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay. The Plaintiffs worked a total of 84 hours in a Pay Period, but Defendants only paid Plaintiffs for 80 hours of work. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all overtime hours worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per week as required by Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission's ("IWC") Wage Orders. The Defendants required Plaintiffs to work 12-hour shifts, but they did not pay them overtime pay for the four hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. The Plaintiffs were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods and not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Further Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs their second meal periods for shifts longer than ten hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Controllers, a non-exempt position, at their East Los Angeles, California. Southern California Gas Company is a California corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sang (James) Park, Esq. PARK APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 627-2964 Fax: (310) 362-8279 Email: james@park-lawyers.com SPICE ALLIANCE: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spice Alliance, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05648 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://spicejungle.com (hereinafter "Spicejungle.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Spicejungle.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Spice Alliance provides to the public a website known as Spicejungle.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a vast variety of spices, herbs, dried vegetables, tea leaves, glass bottles, cooking books.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 917-437-3737 Email: mcohen@ealg.law SPROUT FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Davidson Due June 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLIAN DAVIDSON and SAMUEL DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. SPROUT FOODS INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01050-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order setting case schedule including briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: a. The Defendant's answer to the operative complaint shall be due on or before June 6, 2025; b. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and any expert reports in support thereof shall be due on or before Jan. 29, 2026; c. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification and any expert reports in support thereof shall be due on or before March 26, 2026; d. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification and any reply expert reports shall be due on or before May 21, 2026; and e. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall take place on June 4, 2026. Sprout manufactures organic baby food products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C9g1Ye at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, 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 hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth V. McNulty, Esq. Joshua D. Cools, Esq. Christopher J. C. Waldon, Esq. EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, Ca. 92614 Telephone: (949) 339-5026 Facsimile: (949) 966-0706 E-mail: emcnulty@efstriallaw.com jcools@efstriallaw.com cwaldon@efstriallaw.com STAR EQUITY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Hudson Globl --------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Star Equity Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: STRR), relating to the proposed Merger with Hudson Globl, Inc. that will create NewCo. Upon completion of the Merger, Hudson shareholders will own approximately 79% of NewCo, and Star shareholders will own approximately 21% of NewCo's estimated 3.49 million shares outstanding. Pending regulatory and shareholder approvals, the proposed Merger is anticipated to close in the second half of 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/star-equity-holdings/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Hutton Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Blake Hutton, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company doing business as ASHLEY FURNITURE; ASHLEY HOMESTORES, LTD, a Wisconsin corporation; JOSH REDDING an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01475048-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04452. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all wages due upon termination; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to indemnify; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Shojaei Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mohammedreza Milad Shojaei, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company; ASHLEY HOMESTORE, a business entity of unknown form; ASHLEY HOMESTORES, LTD, a Wisconsin corporation; THE ASHLEY COMPANIES, a business entity of unknown form; ASHLEY FURNITURE, a business entity of unknown form; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV10906 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04445. The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class for: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages and overtime; failure to pay proper reporting time wages; failure to pay proper sick pay; failure to provide accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all final wages; failure to indemnify; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com SUGAR PAPER: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Sugar Paper, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05070 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Sugar Paper for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://sugarpaper.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sugar Paper's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Sugar Paper, LLC operates the website that offers a range of stationery products and gifts, including greeting cards, keepsake books, planners, notebooks, pens, gift wrap, and home goods accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SURGE LABS INC: Cavalier Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Surge Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Dominique Donjuan Cavalier II, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Surge Labs, Inc. dba Dataannotation, Edwin Chen, an individual, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25625502 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Surge Labs -- https://surgelabs.com/ -- is a reliable and talented web design and development agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle Carney, Esq. JANELLE CARNEY-ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 14758 Pipeline Ave., Ste. E Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Phone: 909-521-9609 Fax: 909-393-0471 Email: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com SWEETWATER SOUND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Sweetwater Sound, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05065 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Sweetwater Sound for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.sweetwater.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. These accessibility issues prevented Plaintiff from fully and independently using the website to explore and potentially purchase audio products, undermining the website's usability for individuals with visual disabilities, says the suit. Sweetwater Sound, LLC operates the website that provides audio equipment, musical instruments, recording gear, and live sound solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend "Fox" Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiffs' amended complaint in Fox v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12090 is due on July 11, 2025. On August 14, 2024, a putative class action captioned Fox v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12090 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged holder of the Company's common stock. On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the Company's response to the complaint. The plaintiff's amended complaint is due on July 11, 2025. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. If a court ultimately determines that the Company is liable in this case, the Company may be subject to substantial damages. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages that may have a material adverse impact on its operations and cash flows. Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, although the outcome could be material to its operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. T-KEBAB BISTRO: Huang Sues Over California Labor Code Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Jindi Huang, individually and on behalf of the State of California and all other Aggrieved Employees v. T-KEBAB BISTRO, INC, a California Corporation; Mike Park, an individual; Ji Long Wu, an individual; Kingsley Kim, an individual; and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case No. 25STCV14506 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 16, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Cal. Lab. Code for Continuing Wages, Failure to Provide Meal Breaks, Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, Failure to Provide Pay Stubs, Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Failure to Reimburse Necessary Expenses, Restitution. Throughout the employment, Plaintiff was routinely subjected to unlawful wage and hour practices by Defendants. On weekends, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to remain on-call without compensation for extended periods, often exceeding two hours per day, and to return to work on short notice, During the weekdays, from Monday to Friday, Defendants also required Plaintiff to remain on the premises during unpaid "down time," despite not being relieved of all duties and remaining under Defendants' control. Additionally, on numerous occasions, Plaintiff was permitted to work only 3.5 hours but were required to remain on-site, idle and unpaid, for extended periods thereafter. These practices violated California's wage and hour laws, including the right to reporting time pay and compensation for all hours worked or under the employer's control. The Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff in accordance with California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or forty hours per week, nor were they paid at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked. This includes time spent during extended unpaid "down time," on-call periods, and pre and post shift work activities. Plaintiff regularly worked off-the-clock or underreported hours without proper compensation., says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a server for Defendants from about March 15, 2024, to July 21, 2024. T-Kebab Bistro, Inc. is a California corporation, which at all times relevant herein, conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tony Zhao, Esq. Lin Zhan, Esq. EMANATE LAW GROUP P.C. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 - #2184 Los Angeles CA 90071 Phone: 213-886-5080 Email: tony@emanatelaw.com lin@emanatelaw.com TARGET CORP: Veggie Straws Contain Chemical preservative, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Target has falsely advertised its Good & Gather Veggie Straws given that the supposedly preservative-free products contain synthetic chemical preservative calcium chloride. According to the 15-page lawsuit, Target's labeling of its Good & Gather Veggie Straws is misleading to consumers, many of whom actively seek products free of synthetic chemicals. The complaint states that the veggie straws, touted as containing no artificial flavors, synthetic colors or preservatives, in fact contain calcium chloride, a synthetic preservative. The complaint relays that calcium chloride fits the FDA's definition of a chemical preservative and is moreover considered a synthetic ingredient, as "each of the three commercial production methods for producing calcium chloride require synthetic chemical reactions to produce commercial quantities." The lawsuit goes on to state that Target also sells competing veggie straw snack products that similarly advertise themselves as containing no artificial or synthetic ingredients and in fact "exclude calcium chloride or any other identifiably synthetic preservatives." The plaintiff contends that he and other proposed class members were deprived not only of their "legally protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about consumer products" but also of "their choice to buy competing products that delivered the benefits [they] sought." Ultimately, the lawsuit claims that Target "knew or should have known that calcium chloride retards the deterioration of food products and is therefore a chemical preservative." The plaintiff is an Illinois resident who claims to have purchased Good & Gather Veggie Straws under the impression that they were free of artificial and synthetic ingredients. The case says the consumer did not understand that the snack contained a preservative given that "he does not have an advanced understanding of chemistry," and could not have known the veggie straws contained a preservative based on Target's label claims at issue. "As a result of Defendant's fraudulent labeling, Plaintiff and the Class paid a price premium for premium Products, but instead received non-premium products," the class action suit summarizes. This false advertising lawsuit seeks to represent all United States residents who have bought Target's Good & Gather veggie straws in the last 5 years. [GN] TARGET CORP: Villa Sues Over Moisturizing Creams' Misleading Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA VILLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-04129 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for fraudulent omission or concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and violations of California's False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers who purchased the Aveeno Baby Eczema Therapy Moisturizing Cream from the Defendants. The Defendant provides consumers with two versions of Aveeno's eczema therapy cream -- the Aveeno Eczema Therapy Daily Moisturizing Cream (the "Adult Version") and the Aveeno Baby Eczema Therapy Moisturizing Cream. The Defendant markets, advertises, and displays the Adult Version and Baby Version of the Aveeno Eczema Therapy Cream as two distinct products. However, the Adult and Baby Versions contain the same formula and same ingredients. Despite this, the Defendant charges a higher price to consumers purchasing the Baby Version, banking on the fact that consumers, such as parents, are inclined to pay more for products they believe are specially formulated for babies, and therefore, safe for babies, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff, like many Target consumers, was mislead by Defendant's representation of the Product as distinct and specially formulated for babies and therefore suffered economic injury by paying more for the Product than she would have had she known the truth -- that the Baby Version and Adult Version are the same -- or would not have purchased the Product at all, says the suit. Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com TARGET CORPORATION: Brodiski Sues Over TBPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Jesika Brodiski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 25-2-13867-4 KNT (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., May 7, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of Washington's Telephone Buyers' Protection Act ("TBPA"), and Washinton's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") as a result of the Defendant's non-disclosures. The Defendant sells iPhone brand cell phone products (the "Products" or "iPhones"). The packaging for the Products omits certain disclosures that are required under Washinton's TBPA, including, the person responsible for the repair of the equipment, standard repair charges, and the terms of the warranty for the Products. The Defendant's non-disclosures mislead consumers and are a per se violation of Washington's CPA. The Plaintiff, who purchased an iPhone in Washington, was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on behalf of Washington consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone from a Target store in King County, Washington. Target Corporation is a Delaware Corporation who was authorized to do business in the state of Washington and is doing business in the State of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Byrne Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Byrne, individually and as representative of classes of similarly situated participants in the TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (TIAA) CODE SECTION 401(k) PLAN and the TIAA RETIREMENT PLAN, PLAINTIFF v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (TIAA), the TIAA BOARD OF TRUSTEES and its members, the TIAA PLAN INVESTMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE and its members, and JOHN DOES 1–30, Case No. 1:25-cv-04228 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2025), is brought involving multiple breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), by the fiduciaries of TIAA's Plans. ERISA requires fiduciaries of retirement plans to closely monitor plan investments, to remove imprudent investments within a reasonable time, and to make all investment decisions solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. Here, Defendants TIAA, the TIAA Board of Trustees and its members (the "Board of Trustees"), the TIAA Plan Investment Review Committee and its members (the "Investment Committee"), and John Does 1–30 (collectively, "TIAA Defendants") breached these fiduciary duties. The TIAA Defendants have kept in the Plans their proprietary in-house managed funds with a higher-cost share class when a lower-cost share class was readily available, resulting in the Plans paying higher fees than they otherwise would have paid for investing in the exact same funds. A loyal and prudent fiduciary would not offer in-house funds to the Plans that cause them to pay higher fees. The TIAA Defendants have also kept in the Plans a proprietary in-house managed fund that has consistently underperformed its market benchmark. The underperformance has been neither modest nor temporary. Since 2009, this fund has underperformed its stated benchmark by over 186%. After ten years of underperformance, a loyal and prudent fiduciary would have removed the fund from the Plans. But instead, the TIAA Defendants kept the fund in the Plans, and the Plans' participants and beneficiaries have suffered as a result, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a participant in the Plans. TIAA is headquartered in New York, New York, and is a major U.S. financial institution with over $1 trillion in assets under management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Kornblith, Esq. Sharon Kim, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, Suite 3700 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 Email: rkornblith@sanfordheisler.com sharonkim@sanfordheisler.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 369-4523 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com TENCHI LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENCHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04028 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.honeygramz.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on May 7, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Honey from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the complaint relates. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. TENCHI, LLC operates the website that sells honey products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal TENNESSEE: Faces Keira Class Suit Over Failed Foster Care System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keira M., minor, by next friend STACIE ODENEAL; Darnell H., minor, by next friend SHERRY TAYLOR; Jasmine G., minor, by next friend STACIE ODENEAL; Amara G. and Zane G., minors, by next friend DARLENE VASTANO; Aaron C., Arielle H., Ava C., Andrew C., and Adrian H., minors, by next friend TRINA ROGERS; Zander M., minor, by next friend MARJORIE BRISTOL; Dewayne W., minor, by next friend EMILY JENKINS; Max W., minor, by next friend, SHERRY TAYLOR; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARGIE QUIN, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Children's Services; CARLA AARON, Deputy Commissioner, Child Safety, Tennessee Department of Children's Services; and KAREN JOINTER BRYANT, Deputy Commissioner, Child Programs, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Case No. 3:25-cv-00566 (M.D. Tenn., May 19, 2025) contends that Tennessee's foster care system is failing the children it is intended to protect. According to the complaint, Tennessee's Department of Children's Services ("DCS") warehouses children in spaces which lack the basic necessities of life, including adequate food, bedding, soap, and potable water. Intended as temporary placements, DCS leaves children in these situations for months on end. Once placed in 'long-term' placements, children fare no better. DCS contracts with facilities which possess well-known track records of physical, mental, and sexual abuse. Children are placed in foster homes that have not been properly vetted, do not receive necessary information about the children, and do not receive the services necessary to care for them. Foster care is intended to be temporary, until children can either be reunited with their families or placed in another permanent home; however, children in Tennessee linger in foster care and are moved from place to place without the opportunity for a stable childhood. The caseworkers required to support and protect foster children are overworked and undertrained. Due to crushing caseloads, DCS caseworkers are unable to reliably perform the basic duties necessary to oversee the well-being of the foster children assigned to their care. As concluded by a state audit in 2022, "the safety, permanency, and well-being of Tennessee's most vulnerable children is in jeopardy." DCS's dereliction of care is no mere oversight or mistake. It has been previously sued in federal court for violating the rights of foster children. As a result of the suit, DCS improved many aspects of the foster care system, until the court ended its jurisdiction over DCS's performance metrics in 2017. However, eight years later, the state of Tennessee's child welfare system is just as bad, if not worse, than the crisis which engendered the previous lawsuit. Plaintiff Keira M., aged 11, has been in DCS custody since August 2024 and remains in DCS custody as of the time of this filing. While in DCS custody, DCS has subjected Keira to unnecessary physical, mental, and emotional harm by failing to provide timely and appropriate mental health treatment, placing her in overly restrictive institutional settings, and obstructing her path to a permanent home. The Defendant is a state agency of Tennessee that operates services for children and youth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah B. Miller, Esq. Miranda MacNaughton, Esq. BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC 21 Platform Way South, Suite 3500 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone (615) 742-6200 Facsimile (615) 742-6293 Telephone: (615) 742-7800 E-mail: smiller@bassberry.com miranda.macnaughton@bassberry.com - and - Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Robyn Goldberg, Esq. Anastasia Benedetto, Esq. mlowry@abetterchildhood.org rgoldberg@abetterchildhood.org abenedetto@abetterchildhood.org A BETTER CHILDHOOD 355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 795-4456 Facsimile: (212) 692-0415 - and - Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq. William O'Reilly, Esq. Julie R. Gorla, Esq. THE BARBARA MCDOWELL SOCIAL JUSTICE CENTER 3607 Whispering Lane Falls Church, VA 22041 Telephone: (513) 319-9609 E-mail: m.zwisler@mcdowellsocialjusticecenter.org w.oreilly@mcdowellsocialjusticecenter.org j.gorla@mcdowellsocialjusticecenter.org - and - Wesley R. Powell, Esq. Justin Garbacz, Esq. Amanda M. Payne, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 Facsimile: (212) 728-8111 E-mail: wpowell@willkie.com jgarbacz@willkie.com apayne@willkie.com - and - Eric Hecker, Esq. WANG HECKER LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 E-mail: ehecker@wanghecker.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: FRL, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert in Vriens --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL VRIENS and STEVE SMITH, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TIP-TOP ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Third-Party Defendants The Fantastic Roofers, LLC, Tejas Del Techo, LLC, And Tejas Del Techo D/B/A Ruth Patterson, And Ruth Blackburn D/B/A Tejas Del Techo, LLC, ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay class certification and extend briefing deadline to allow for pre-class certification discovery filed in response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, it would unduly prejudice parties including but not limited to these Third-Party Defendants to require briefing to proceed at this time. While the Plaintiffs do not have direct claims against the Third-Party Defendants, the issue of class certification will impact claims asserted against Archer, Contract Exteriors, and SEE, and thus, ultimately the claims they assert against these Third-Party Defendants. The number of claims at issue against D.R. Horton will ultimately determine the number of claims that will be asserted downstream which will ultimately be asserted against Fantastic Roofers, and Tejas Del Techo. They must therefore be afforded a right to put forth a position as to whether this action should be certified as a class. The Defendants include PACIFIC CONTRACTORS, LLC, BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE -- SOUTHEAST GROUP, LLC, CAROLINA CUSTOM CARPENTRY, LLC, QUAK K, LLC, JJL CONSTRUCTION, LLC CAC CARPENTRY, LLC, ALPHA CONSTRUCTION OF SC, LLC, GOOD LUCK INCORPORATED, SOUTH ATLANTIC FRAMING, INC., SRC CONSTRUCTION, LLC, JALISCO FRAMING, LLC, MENDOZA CONSTRUCTION, LLC, VL CONTRACTOR, LLC, 84 LUMBER COMPANY, LP VARNADO CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., TOMTECH, LLC d/b/a FIRM FOUNDATION COASTAL CAROLINA’S, VALIM CONSTRUCTION, LLC, RAM CONSTRUCTION, SC, LLC, GOLD STAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, PROBUILG EAST, LLC, SEE HOLDINGS EXTERIORS, INC., AMERICO ROOFING CONCEPTS, INC., CONTRACT EXTERIORS, HOLY CITY EXTERIORS, LLC, SR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ROBERT HELMS CONSTRUCTION, INC., QUICK ROOFING, LLC, MONARCH COMPANY, LLC, ACCURATE BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, SOUTHEND EXTERIORS, LLC, ABOVE THE SKY ROOFING, INC., ABC SUPERIOR DISTRIBUTION, CONTRACT LUMBER, INC., BMC EAST, LLP, USLBMPROFESSIONAL BUILDERS, SUPPLY a/k/a US LBM HOLDINGS, LLC, a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. HORTON, INC. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7cyfCE at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Allen Leland DuPre, Esq. LYLES & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Suite G100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464-4162 Telephone: (843) 577-7730 Facsimile: (843) 577-7172 E-mail: ald@lylesfirm.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: Seeks Stay of Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Vriens and Nicholas Bardsley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendant Tip-Top Roofing & Construction, LLC joins in totality and adopts by reference, as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c): -- various Defendants' motions to stay class certification pending ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to extend briefing deadline(s) to allow for pre-class certification discovery. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, and Builders FirstSource – Southeast Group, LLC, Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC, Quad K, LLC, JJL Construction, LLC, CAC Carpentry, LLC, Alpha Construction of SC, LLC, Good Luck Incorporated, South Atlantic Framing, Inc., SRC Construction, LLC, Jalisco Framing, LLC, Mendoza Construction, LLC, VL Contractor, LLC, 84 Lumbar Company, LP, Varanda Contracting Group, Inc., TOMECH, LLC d/b/a Firm Foundation Coastal Carolina’s, Valim Construction, LLC, Ram Construction SC, LLC, Gold Star Construction, LLC, ProBuild East, LLC, Archer Exteriors, Inc., Americo Roofing Concepts, Inc., Contract Exteriors, LLC, Holy City Exteriors, LLC, SR Construction, LLC, Robert Helms Construction, Inc., Quick Roofing, LLC, Monarch Company, LLC, Accurate Building Company, LLC, Southend Exteriors, Inc., Above the Sky Roofing, Inc., ABC Supply Co, Inc., SRS Distribution, Inc. f/k/a Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLP, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and D.R. Horton, Inc. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2ktVy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James Edward Bradley, Esq. MOORE BRADLEY MYERS LAW FIRM, PA 1700 Sunset Boulevard (29169) West Columbia, SC 29171 Telephone: (803) 796-9160 E-mail: ward@mbmlawsc.com TIPPECANOE COUNTY COUNCIL: Davis Files Suit in N.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tippecanoe County Council, et al. The case is styled as Shuvar Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tippecanoe County Council, Case No. 1:25-cv-00255-TLS-JEM (N.D. Ind., May 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Tippecanoe County Government -- https://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/525/County-Council -- will provide responsive, high-quality services that enhance and maintain self-sufficiency, personal safety, economic opportunity.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNILEVER UNITED: Adds Junk Fees to Consumers' Carts, Poore Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA POORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, Case No. 3:25-cv-04294 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2025) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Unilever arising from its deceptive addition of junk fees to consumers' shopping carts on Olly.com. When consumers browse products on Olly's website, Olly advertises the price of its retail items, along with an advertisement for either free or flat rate shipping. Those pricing representations are false, however, because Olly surreptitiously adds junk fees to consumer purchases, including a so-called "Order Protection" fees. The Plaintiff contends that Olly surreptitiously adds fees to consumers' carts. When a consumer visits olly.com, the consumer is informed that orders over $49 are entitled to free shipping. When a consumer presses the large purple "ADD TO CART" button, the shopping cart is automatically displayed on the side of the webpage. The consumer’s cart is riddled with deception. In the cart, the consumer is again free shipping for orders over $49. Olly sneaks in, in much smaller writing than the large purple button screaming "CHECKOUT+", a fee for "Checkout+." Accordingly, the assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since: (a) Olly sneaks these fees into consumers shopping carts; (b) the fees are nothing more than an additional cost for shipping, rendering Olly's promise for "free" or flat-rate shipping false; (c) the fees themselves are deceptively named and described; and (d) the fees provide no added value to consumers and reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, would not knowingly choose to pay them, absent Defendant's deception. Thousands of e-commerce customers like Plaintiff have been assessed hidden shipping charges for which they did not bargain due to Olly's deceptive tactics. 5. By unfairly obscuring their true shipping costs, Defendant deceives consumers and gain an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true shipping charges, the suit alleges. Unilever owns Olly. Olly is a retailer specializing in vitamins and supplements headquartered in San Francisco, California in the County of San Francisco. Olly is a vitamin and supplement brand. Olly sells its products both through its own online website and in major retail stores such as Target.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com UNILEVER UNITED: Dove Body Wash Contains Allergens, Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KALMAN ROSENFELD and FELICIA NOVICK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED SATES, INC., a Delaware and New Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-04804 (D.N.J., May 20, 2025) is a class action aims to hold the Defendant responsible for failing to truthfully and accurately label and market its Dove brand Sensitive Skin Body Wash. Since its founding, the Defendant touts Dove as being a credible and trustworthy brand in the skin care and hygiene industry. Seeking to capture the growing hypoallergenic market, the Defendant prominently labels its Dove Sensitive Skin Body Wash as "hypoallergenic." This representation is false and misleading, however. Despite Defendant's marketing scheme, the Product is full of known skin sensitizers (i.e., allergens) and is itself a skin sensitizer according to the scientific and regulatory definition of a skin sensitizer, the suit contends. The Product contains skin sensitizers in an amount that can reasonably be expected to induce an allergic response in a significant number of its intended users (i.e., individuals with sensitive skin). 8. As a result of the Product’s ingredients, the Product is also just as likely and, for some products, more likely to cause an allergic reaction in its intended users than similar, competing products which do not claim to be hypoallergenic. And, the Product is far more likely to cause an allergic reaction in its intended users than similar, competing products which are, in fact, hypoallergenic, alleges the suit. UNILEVER UNITED SATES, INC. manufactures personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com UNITED STATES: American Tribe Sue Over Abuse in Boarding Schools ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Healy, writing for The New York Times, reports that two Native American tribes on Thursday, May 22, filed what they called the first major lawsuit against the U.S. government's notorious system of Indian boarding schools, which for decades splintered families and stripped Indigenous children of their language and culture. The tribes argued that the federal government betrayed the promises it made in treaties to provide for the education of tribal youths. Instead, using money set aside for tribes, the government shunted Native children into schools where they were beaten, abused and forced to assimilate. The class-action lawsuit said the survivors of the schools and their heirs have never been compensated for the "irreparable injuries" they have suffered, and said they are now owed an accounting of how the money was spent. "Rather than provide what was promised and what was legally owed, the United States forcibly separated Native children from their parents, and systematically sought to erase their cultural identity, killing, torturing, starving and sexually assaulting many in the process," the lawsuit said. The suit, against the Department of Interior, its Bureau of Indian Affairs, its Bureau of Indian Education and its current leader, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, was brought by the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma on behalf of Native nations whose children attended boarding schools. It was filed in federal court in central Pennsylvania, a symbolically significant location that was once home to the notorious Carlisle Indian Industrial School. There, children were renamed, and were forced to dress in Western clothes and have their hair cut, under the school superintendent's philosophy of "Kill the Indian in him, and save the man." In many cases, the children did not survive. A total of 973 children are confirmed to have died while attending the boarding schools, and tribal members believe hundreds more deaths have not been included in the government's official tally. "We all have stories," said Tasha R. Mousseau, vice president of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. She and several other women tribal leaders recently traveled to the former Carlisle school, where around 180 children have been buried, to retrieve the remains of one of her relatives. "There are so many of our relatives who are unidentified or unclaimed," she said. Officials at the Interior Department, which oversees public lands and many agencies involving Native Americans, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Interior Department, which was led in the Biden administration by the first Native American Interior secretary, Deb Haaland, has recently tried to investigate and account for its role in the boarding-school system, which separated hundreds of thousands of Native children from their families and sent them to a network of more than 400 schools, beginning in the early 1800s through the late 1960s. Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. apologized last year for the abuses, calling it "one of the most horrific chapters in American history." Under Ms. Haaland, the department also last year issued a wide-ranging report that chronicled the dark history of boarding schools and called for a national memorial and investments to help Native communities heal. But lawyers for the tribes said there had never been a full accounting of the inflation-adjusted $23 billion the government spent running those schools, including how much had come from tribal trusts funded by selling Native lands. Tribal leaders say that the harms have rippled across generations, and that they had a right to add up the bill. "We're entitled to an accounting," said Adam J. Levitt, one of the lawyers representing the tribes. "We need to know what happened." Mr. Levitt said the case was one of the first major efforts to hold the government legally accountable for the boarding-school system, in part because most deadlines to sue over other abuses have long since passed. But not, he said, in their case. The lawsuit argued that in cases of lost or mismanaged trust money, the clock does not start ticking until the tribes receive a full accounting from the government. That has never happened, the lawsuit argued. "An accounting -- which the United States is legally required to undertake -- is an important step toward trying to right this horrific wrong," the lawsuit said. Indigenous survivors in Canada reached a settlement worth about $2 billion with the Canadian government in 2023 over that country's boarding-home program. The long-term costs to families, tribes and descendants of the boarding schools are staggering, tribal members say. Survivors have described being snatched from their parents and sent to schools where they were hit, stripped and sexually abused, forbidden from practicing Native religions and forced to convert to Christianity. Reports on the boarding schools say the system left a legacy of shattered communities and long-term psychological trauma and ill health. The lawsuit is infused with such stories. It tells of Ethel Roberts Wheeler, a member of the Wichita tribe, whose grandson said she had "lived in fear her whole life" after she was sent on a cattle car to an Indian school in Phoenix where children were beaten for speaking their Native languages. Or there was Oscar Stephens, another Wichita boy, who tried to run away multiple times after being sent to the Carlisle school in 1908. There, his head was shaved and he was sent to do menial work for other families. His mother, brother and sister died while he was away. Ms. Mousseau, the Wichita vice president, said the lawsuit could now offer "a symbolic win for all of our ancestors who were harmed, who did not survive the boarding-school experience." "This would be monumental for tribal identity throughout this nation," she said. "Native people are very strong and resilient, and they deserved to have recognized the harms that were experienced by our children." [GN] UNITED STATES: DHS Workers Win Class Cert in MSPB Action -------------------------------------------------------- Cohen Milstein reports that in what is believed to be a first since the Trump administration issued government-wide layoffs, the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) today granted class certification to fired probationary employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The decision allows fired probationary employees at the agency to join this class action and seek reinstatement. Though federal courts have slowed the Trump administration's push to cut down the federal workforce overall, this move marks a major victory for fired probationary workers, who lack many of the protections that other federal workers enjoy, at the MSPB. "This is heartening news for the scores of probationary workers whose rights have been trampled on and whose lives were turned upside down by what we believe were illegal reductions in force," said Christopher Bonk, partner at Gilbert Employment Law. "We're looking forward to continuing our fight to get these employees back to serving the mission they joined the civil service to pursue." Leading employment and civil rights attorneys representing federal workers say that the widespread probationary employee layoffs violated at least a dozen laws, regulations, and constitutional protections. The workers argue that the mass terminations constituted a constructive reduction in force (RIF), which require that government agencies consider an employee's tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions. Regulations also typically require 60 days advance notice of termination in a RIF. Instead, public servants were abruptly terminated, with total disregard for these key protections. The probationary DHS employees are represented by Brown Goldstein Levy, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Gilbert Employment Law and James & Hoffman. About Brown Goldstein Levy For almost four decades, Brown, Goldstein & Levy has been recognized as Maryland's leading private law firm for high impact, public interest cases. Our attorneys have handled these challenges in the Supreme Court and most of the federal appellate circuits, as well as in state courts throughout Maryland and around the country. The attorneys at Brown, Goldstein & Levy devise creative and practical solutions to workplace issues. And when negotiated solutions are not possible, we provide effective and tenacious representation. Whether you are a top executive or an hourly wage worker, we can help you understand your rights at work, negotiate fair deals, and litigate aggressively when your rights have been violated. Our lawyers provide counseling and advice about employee rights under state and federal employment laws. We help executives negotiate contract and severance terms, file large wage and hour cases to protect employees' rights to overtime and equal pay, and advocate for employees in whistleblower, discrimination, contract, non-competition, and compensation matters. About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the causes of real people—workers, consumers, small business owners, investors, and whistleblowers—working to deliver corporate reforms and fair markets for the common good. It has litigated landmark civil rights and employment disputes before the highest courts in the nation and continues to actively shape civil rights and employment law in the United States. About Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., is the worker's voice in litigation involving employee rights violations. Gilbert's attorneys are highly skilled in representing federal employees before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal administrative agencies. Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., has also represented employees in county and state courts, as well as U.S. District and Appeals Courts. [GN] UNITED STATES: Must File Class Cert Opposition Bid by June 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S. et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405 (D.D.C., Filed May 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich entered an order that the Defendants shall file an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before June 3, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The United States Department of Health and Human Services is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the US federal government created to protect the health of the US people and providing essential human services. Its motto is "Improving the health, safety, and well-being of America".[CC] UNITED STATES: Sued Over Unlawful Termination of Nonprofit Grants ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Vera Institute of Justice, a 64-year-old national justice reform organization, teamed with a coalition of nonprofit and community organizations to file a class-action complaint intended to offer relief to hundreds of impacted organizations. In addition to Vera, the named plaintiffs -- the Center for Children and Youth Justice, Chinese for Affirmative Action d/b/a Stop AAPI Hate, FORCE Detroit, and Health Resources in Action -- are asking a federal court to stop the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) from unlawfully terminating these grants that save lives and make communities safer. The coalition is represented by Democracy Forward and Perry Law, and the case is Vera Institute of Justice, et al. v. United States Department of Justice, et al. In April 2025, OJP abruptly terminated 373 multi-year cooperative agreements and grants awarding $820 million in essential funding for community violence intervention, victim services, and youth and criminal justice reform. Five of these were cooperative agreements awarded to the Vera Institute of Justice. The Department of Justice's stated justification for the funding termination is that Vera and its co-plaintiffs' work "no longer effectuate[s] the program goals or agency priorities." Vera programs and services endangered by these funding cuts include: -- making prisons across the country safer for both officers and incarcerated people; -- sending trained civilian specialists to behavioral health crises so that police are not the only option in these situations; and -- training police and law enforcement to better serve Deaf survivors of violence. The lawsuit is challenging these illegal grant terminations on behalf of the people Vera serves who will be harmed by these cuts, including: -- hundreds of corrections staff and incarcerated people in two jurisdictions who will no longer benefit from Vera's technical assistance to improve prison operations and culture so that safety and dignity are core tenets of their operational approach; -- thousands of Deaf survivors of crime and those with disabilities who will no longer benefit from language access services that make it easier for law enforcement to serve them; -- hundreds of people facing prosecution who will no longer benefit from diversion programs that address the underlying drivers of criminal conduct, like substance use, a lack of employment and housing, and unmet mental health needs; and -- two cities that have lost more than $700,000 in subaward funding to launch or expand their programs to respond to behavioral health crises and to prevent and intervene in gun violence. "For over sixty years, Vera has worked in partnership with community and government leaders across the entire country -- spanning geographic and political lines -- to solve some of the most intractable problems in the criminal justice system. We bring the data, evidence, and solutions needed to end mass incarceration and ensure dignity and fairness to everyone touched by the system, including those who work in it. Our goal is for all communities to be safe, healthy, and just," said Nick Turner, president and director of the Vera Institute of Justice. "The arbitrary termination of Vera's federal funding and those of our essential partners and peers, totaling $820 million across 200+ organizations in more than 35 states, undermines the very programs and services that save lives and make communities safer." Vera is in this fight not only for our own organization but also for the hundreds of other organizations that have lost critical funding for their work to reduce violence, protect survivors of crime, and keep countless people in communities across the United States safe. [GN] UNITED SURGICAL: Faces Janosky Class Suit Over Tobacco Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARA JANOSKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00068-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., May 22, 2025) challenges USPI's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff contends that it is both unfair and unlawful for entities like USPI to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. Under ERISA, wellness programs must offer, and provide notice of, a reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to obtain the "full reward" -- including refunds for surcharges paid while completing the program. In doing so, USPI violates federal regulations and deprives employees of health plan benefits to which they are entitled under ERISA, says the suit. The Plaintiff was an employee of USPI, who paid a tobacco surcharge in the form of increased premiums for health insurance of roughly $50 per month (roughly $600 annually) offered through USPI during her employment. USPI is a provider of ambulatory surgical services and related healthcare solutions across the country. It operates outpatient surgery centers and partners with physicians and hospitals to deliver surgical care in both urban and rural communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie Pescia, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. Kimberly Dodson, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: lpescia@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com kdodson@sirillp.com UNITED WHOLESALE: Ohio Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, and others similarly situated v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 153635/2025 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00160-TMR-CHG. The EDMI Complaint alleges many facts similar or nearly identical to those alleged in this lawsuit and includes eleven counts under federal and state law: Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); RICO conspiracy; the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ("RESPA"); aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; civil conspiracy; unjust enrichment; and claims under the consumer protection laws of North Carolina; Tennessee; Florida; and California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey J. Jones, Esq. Michael R. Gladman, Esq. Brandy Hutton Ranjan, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H McConnell Blvd #600, Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 469-3939 Email: jjjones@jonesday.com mrgladman@jonesday.com branjan@jonesday.com - and - Stephen J. Cowen, Esq. Amanda K. Rice, Esq. Andrew J. Clopton, Esq. JONES DAY 150 W. Jefferson Ave, Suite 2100 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 733-3939 Email: scowen@jonesday.com arice@jonesday.com aclopton@jonesday.com - and - Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq. JONES DAY 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-3939 Email: rbkcehowski@jonesday.com UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Settlement in MyChart Class Suit Proposed ------------------------------------------------------------------ George Gandy, writing for Rochester First, reports that The University of Rochester is proposing a settlement in a class action lawsuit regarding its website and MyChart. The university's settlement administrator sent an email out saying anyone who used URMC's MyChart Patient Portal between January 11, 2021 through January 11, 2023 may submit a claim. This also applies to those who filled out a form on URMC's website between January 2018 through June 12, 2023. According to the URMC Settlement website, the settlement is still pending approval. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs used the university's website to make appointments with and speak with healthcare providers. It was alleged that UR used two web tracking products, one of which is connected to Facebook, to transmit their personally identifiable information and private health information to Facebook. The lawsuit says that UR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion was partially granted, but the court ruled that it was plausible for UR to have allegedly violated the Wiretap Act. URMC states that they deny all of the claims and contentions, especially denying that they used tracking technology in the patient portal or electronic medical record system. They added that they settled to avoid the risk of continuing the litigation. Those who wish to file a claim, opt out of, or object to the settlement may do so by clicking here. The deadline to do these is July 21, 2025. News 8 has reached out to the University of Rochester for comment. They said the confidentiality of patient information continues to be their top priority: "The privacy and security of URMC patients' health information is exceptionally important, and the protection of this confidential information remains a top priority. We continually assess our data collection, data privacy, and digital monitoring tools and practices so that they meet or exceed security standards. While URMC disputes the plaintiffs' allegations, we are pleased to have reached a resolution." [GN] VELVET CAVIAR: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Velvet Caviar Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00675 (E.D. Wis., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://velvetcaviar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inadequate focus order, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Velvet Caviar Group's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Velvet Caviar Group, Inc. operates the website that provides designer cases for various phones and laptops, as well as screen protectors, camera lenses, grips, wallets, and gift cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law VESTA MINE: Seeks More Time to File Certification Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GRAY, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. VESTA MINE SERVICES, INC, d/b/a VESTA MINE SUPPLY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01069-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional thirty (30) days to file its response to the motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice The case involves averments that Vesta breached the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime provisions: -- by failing to compensate employees for pre- and post-shift activities, and -- failing to compensate employees for time spent working during lunch breaks. On Friday, May 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the above-referenced Motion for Conditional Certification, which includes declarations signed by Paul Gray, Gage Utt and Matthew Starr. On Monday, May 5, 2025, the Plaintiff issued deposition notices unilaterally scheduling the depositions of defense witnesses Denny Welsh, Harley Hubbs and James Fisher on May 20 and May 21, while the Motion for Conditional Certification remained pending. On Feb. 21, 2025, the Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Paychex. See Paychex Subpoena, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 15. On March 3, 2025, Vesta issued timely objections thereto. In mid-April 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel advised that Paychex had improperly produced documents to Plaintiff in spite of Vesta’s pending objections. Vesta is a family-owned business specializing in mining products and services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vfsEF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sean R. Riley, Esq. Paul Shane Miller, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP 5800 Corporate Drive, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Telephone: (412) 748-1789 E-mail: sriley@fmglaw.com Shane.Miller@fmglaw.com VESTIS CORP: "O'Neill" Remains Pending in Delaware -------------------------------------------------- Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the the quarterly period ended March 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the securities class suit filed in Delaware remains pending. On June 4, 2024, a purported Vestis shareholder commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Vestis, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned O'Neill v. Vestis Corp., Case No. 2024-0600-JTL. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of Vestis shareholders. The complaint alleges a single claim for declaratory judgment, seeking to invalidate and void Section II.5(d) of Vestis' Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective September 29, 2023. On October 7, 2024, the Court granted a stipulation to consolidate multiple related actions involving similar company defendants, including the Vestis action, solely for purposes of adjudicating an omnibus motion to dismiss the complaints in each of those actions. On October 11, 2024, Vestis and the other consolidated defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the omnibus motion to dismiss for May 14, 2025. VESTIS CORP: $3.1MM Settlement in Cake Love Suit Has Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the the quarterly period ended March 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission On May 13, 2022, Cake Love Co. commenced a putative class action lawsuit against AmeriPride Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Vestis, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit was subsequently updated to add an additional named plaintiff, Q-Mark Manufacturing, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants increased certain pricing charged to members of the purported class without the proper notice required by service agreements between AmeriPride and members of the purported class and that AmeriPride breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of the purported class representing the amount of the allegedly improperly noticed price increases along with attorneys' fees, interest and costs. During fiscal 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was subject to final court approval. The settlement included, among other terms, a monetary component of $3.1 million. On May 6, 2025, the court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The order authorizes a third-party administrator to distribute the settlement fund to the settlement class members. The full amount of the proposed settlement was provided for in the Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements in fiscal 2024 and is outstanding as of March 28, 2025. VESTIS CORP: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the the quarterly period ended March 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend the securities class suit filed in the Northern District of Georgia. On May 17, 2024, a purported Vestis shareholder commenced a putative class action lawsuit against Vestis and certain of its officers, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Plumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Vestis' common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024, inclusive. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false or misleading statements generally related to the Company's business and operations, pricing practices, and financial results and outlook. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On September 23, 2024, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and on November 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 25, 2025 and plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on May 2, 2025. Defendants' reply brief in further support of their motion to dismiss is due to be filed on June 2, 2025. VESTIS SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Ramos Due March 6, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lana Ramos v. Vestis Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06238-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order continuing class certification hearing and briefing schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a March 6, 2026 class certification motion be: -- The Defendant's deadline to file an April 27, 2026 opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion be: -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file May 11, 2026 a reply be: -- The hearing on the Plaintiffs' June 1, 2026 motion for class certification be calendared for: -- Settlement and further scheduling July 6, 2026 conference is continued from Dec. 15, 2025, to: Vestis offers uniforms and workplace supplies. The Company provides full-service uniform rental program, cleanroom and other specialty garment processing, floor mats, towels, linens, managed restroom services, first aid supplies, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LO9Hot at no extra charge.[CC] VIGIL NEUROSCIENCE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Sanofi ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Vigil Neuroscience, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIGL), relating to the proposed merger with French company, Sanofi. Under the terms of the agreement, Sanofi will acquire Vigil for an upfront payment of $8.00 per share of common stock in cash. Vigil shareholders will also receive a non-tradeable contingent value right entitling the holder to potentially receive an additional $2.00 per share in cash payable following the first commercial sale of VG-3927 if achieved within a specific period. The total equity value of the transaction, including the potential CVR payment, represents approximately $600 million on a fully diluted basis. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vigil-neuroscience-inc-vigl/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Greenlights Class Suit over Probiotics ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, denies the defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony, grants motions to seal certain filings, and grants the defendants' motion to substitute an exhibit in the case styled Starr et al. v. VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02173-LKG (D. Md.). David Starr, Edmund Quiambao, Bernadette Mavrikos on behalf of themselves and all other members of the proposed classes, are suing defendants VSL Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Leadiant Biosciences, Inc., Alfasigma USA, Inc., Nutrilinea S.R.L., and Centro Sperimentale del Latte S.R.L., over alleged deceptive marketing practices related to the probiotic product VSL#3. On August 15, 2024, plaintiffs moved for class certification. The court held a hearing on the motions to certify the classes, exclude expert testimony, seal filings, and substitute an exhibit on April 10, 2025, at which time all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The court affirms its determinations in prior (relevant) orders and finally certifies, for purposes of this litigation only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following classes: (1) a nationwide class of all persons and entities who purchased VSL#3 in the United States during the period from June 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby by violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); and (2) nine state-specific classes for persons and entities who purchased VSL#3 in Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin during the same period, asserting claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and respective state consumer protection laws. Excluded from the classes are: (i) defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer, director, or control person of any defendant during the class period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any excluded person or entity has or had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the classes are those persons who excluded themselves by submitting a valid request for exclusion accepted by the court. Pursuant to Rule 23 and for purposes of this litigation only, the court finally certifies David Starr, Krista Karo, James Tettenhorst,Peter Stavros as class representatives for the classes; and finally appoints the law firms of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC as class counsel for the classes. The court denies the defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Samantha Iyengar and Richard J. Eichmann. The court finds the proposed Eichmann/Iyengar model, which includes a consumer survey, a physician survey, and a market simulation to calculate benefit-of-the-bargain damages, satisfies the reliability and relevance requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court determines that defendants' objections to the experts' methodologies, including arguments regarding the quantification of survey results and the speculative nature of the market simulation, go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Accordingly, the motion to exclude is denied in all respects. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the court grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and finds that, in light of the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3), the proposed classes are appropriate, having considered and found that: (a) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the classes through active participation and vigorous prosecution of the claims; (b) the claims arise from a common course of conduct involving defendants' alleged uniform misrepresentations about the VSL#3 formulation; (c) the class representatives' claims are typical of those of the classes, stemming from the same alleged fraudulent scheme; (d) the numerosity requirement is satisfied, with hundreds of thousands of potential class members based on sales of over 2.4 million units of VSL#3 during the class period; (e) common questions of law and fact predominate, including whether defendants falsely advertised the current formulation as clinically proven and whether they engaged in a RICO enterprise; and (f) a class action is superior to individual litigation given the large number of class members and the relatively small stakes of individual claims. Accordingly, the classes are certified in all respects. The court grants the parties' motions to seal certain filings as they contain confidential business information and there are no less restrictive alternatives to sealing. The court also grants the defendants' motion to substitute an exhibit (ECF No. 328), finding the substitution appropriate and consistent with the interests of justice. The first amended complaint, filed on September 10, 2020, remains the operative pleading, and the litigation shall proceed in accordance with the court's rulings. The court finds that during the course of the action, the parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon certification of the classes, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their capacities as such, shall proceed with the litigation of their claims against the defendants. The court retains jurisdiction over this action to consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the certified classes and the prosecution of this case. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=plXfqR from PacerMonitor.com. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Villatoro Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Obed Villatoro, Clemencia Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01870 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04448-ODW-MAA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Walmart -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mikael Hans Stahle, Esq. Matthew John Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 East El Segundo Boulevard, Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 531-1900 Email: mstahle@maternlawgroup.com mmatern@maternlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Melis Atalay, Esq. Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: melis.atalay@ogletree.com paloma.peracchio@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC Park Tower 695 Town Center Drive 15th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 800-7900 Fax: (714) 754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com WALMART INC: Butler Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jack Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 25-2-07890-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05445. The Plaintiff asserts two claims against Walmart for alleged violations of the Washington Telephone Buyers' Protection Act, Revised Code of Washington ("RCW") ("TBPA") and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander A Baehr, Esq. SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104-2682 Phone: (206) 676-7000 Email: alexb@SummitLaw.com - and - Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. Nicole C. Valco, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com nicole.valco@lw.com WALMART INC: Faces Thomas Suit Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATY THOMAS and KIM ANTWINE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-04114 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2025) is a proposed class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a nationwide and California class of consumers seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Equate Apple Cider Vinegar Gummy Dietary Supplements pursuant to California's Business and Professions Code. Walmart markets, advertises, and sells a line of Apple Cider Vinegar Adult Gummy Dietary Supplements under the Equate brand name. The Product's principal display panel claims that it is Apple Cider Vinegar. The Supplement Fact Section states that each gummy contains 500 mg of Apple Cider Vinegar. By law, any product claiming to be Apple Cider Vinegar must contain a minimum of 4% acetic acid. Anything less, the product is not and cannot be called Apple Cider Vinegar and its content rendered inefficacious and worthless. The Plaintiffs conducted analytical testing on 12 representative samples of Walmart's Equate Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies which reveal that the Products, contrary to their labels, contain approximately only 2.5% acetic acid rendering its claim to be "Apple Cider Vinegar" false, misleading, deceptive and unlawful and the Product itself worthless. Throughout the applicable Class Period, the Defendant has falsely represented the true nature of its Product. As a result, the Defendant was able to sell them to thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California and the United States, says the suit. Walmart, Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend "Biddle" Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend itself in the antitrust class action referred to as the Biddle Action. On November 18, 2022, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to YouTube TV (the "Biddle Action"). The plaintiffs in the Biddle Action asserted a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that Disney uses certain pricing and packaging provisions in its carriage agreements with vMVPDs to increase prices for and reduce output of certain services offered by vMVPDs. On November 30, 2022, a second private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to DirecTV Stream (the "Fendelander Action"), making similar allegations. The Company filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in both the Biddle Action and Fendelander Action on January 31, 2023. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss both cases and, on October 13, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases. On October 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended putative class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee antitrust laws based on substantially similar allegations as the Biddle Action and the Fendelander Action. The Consolidated Complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified money damages and costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim on December 1, 2023. The Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted in part and denied in part on June 25, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Court entered a case management order setting, among other dates, plaintiffs' deadline to file their class certification motion for March 27, 2026. In a May 2, 2025 joint case management statement to the court, plaintiffs' counsel in the Biddle Action stated plans to move to amend the operative complaint to add parties and claims, including a class of fuboTV subscribers, and a challenge under Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Disney's pending transaction with Fubo. The court has scheduled a case management conference for May 15, 2025. WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend "Unger" Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend itself in the antitrust class action lawsuit referred to as the Unger Action. On January 14, 2025, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to fuboTV (the "Unger Action"), making similar allegations to those in the now-consolidated Biddle and Fendelander Actions (consolidated lawsuit). The plaintiffs in Unger also alleged that Disney impermissibly bundles ESPN with other Disney networks and unjust enrichment. The Unger Action has since been transferred to the Northern District of California with the court finding it related to the Biddle and Fendelander Actions. The Unger plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2025, adding a named plaintiff and alleging essentially the same antitrust theories under the Sherman Act and the antitrust and consumer protection laws of thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Unger plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring the Company to segregate or divest any interest in Fubo and Hulu, or in the alternative, business assets relating to Fubo and Hulu + Live TV. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously, and its motion to dismiss or answer the amended complaint currently is due by May 28, 2025. The court has scheduled a case management conference for May 15, 2025. The consolidated lawsuit and the Unger Action are in the early stages, and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report the quarterly period ended March 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend itself in the securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 12, 2023, a private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek, its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy, and the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company (the "Securities Class Action"). On November 6, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the same action, adding Robert Iger, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, as a defendant. Claims in the Securities Class Action include (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, (ii) violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Iger and McCarthy, and (iii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all defendants. Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning, and a scheme to conceal, accurate costs and subscriber growth of the Disney+ platform. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, plus interest and costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. It filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on December 21, 2023, which was granted in part (dismissing the Section 20A claim against Iger) and otherwise denied on February 19, 2025. On March 28, 2025, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, for which a hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2025. The lawsuit is in the early stages and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. Three shareholder derivative complaints have been filed. The first, in which Hugues Gervat is the plaintiff, was filed on August 4, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The second, in which Stourbridge Investments LLC is the plaintiff, was filed on August 23, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. And the third, in which Audrey McAdams is the Plaintiff, was filed on December 15, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Each named The Walt Disney Company as a nominal defendant and alleged claims on its behalf against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Robert Iger; its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek; its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy; the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel, and ten current and former members of the Disney Board (Susan E. Arnold; Mary T. Barra; Safra A. Catz; Amy L. Chang; Francis A. deSouza; Michael B.G. Froman; Maria Elena Lagomasino; Calvin R. McDonald; Mark G. Parker; and Derica W. Rice). Along with alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, premised on similar allegations as the Securities Class Action, plaintiffs seek to recover under various theories including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste. On October 24, 2023, the Stourbridge action was voluntarily dismissed and, on November 16, 2023, was refiled in Delaware state court alleging analogous theories of liability based on state law. The Gervat and McAdams actions were consolidated on April 29, 2024. The actions have been stayed pending development of the Securities Class Action, with the Stourbridge action being stayed most recently on March 6, 2025 and the Gervat/McAdams stayed on April 11, 2025 through May 27, 2025, the date of a scheduling conference. The actions seek declarative and injunctive relief, an award of unspecified damages to The Walt Disney Company and other costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. The lawsuits are in the early stages, and at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. WELLNOW URGENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.1-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that WellNow Urgent Care agreed to a $1.1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The WellNow Urgent Care data breach settlement benefits 597,000 individuals whose information was compromised in a data breach on April 25, 2023. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim WellNow Urgent Care failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive patient information, including Social Security numbers (SSN). WellNow Urgent Care is an urgent care clinic with locations in New York, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. WellNow Urgent Care has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.1 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the WellNow Urgent Care settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. The settlement includes two subclasses: -- Non-SSN class members: 541,870 individuals whose non-SSN personal information was compromised in the data breach. -- SSN class members: 55,131 individuals whose personal information, including Social Security numbers, was compromised in the data breach. Non-SSN class members can receive up to $7,500 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes expenses, such as professional fees, credit expenses and identity theft losses. Class members can also claim up to two hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. SSN class members can receive up to $7,500 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the WellNow Urgent Care data breach. This includes expenses, such as professional fees, credit expenses, identity theft losses and more. Class members can also claim up to three hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. SSN class members who do not claim reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses can receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund instead of a reimbursement payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 11, 2025. The final approval hearing for the WellNow Urgent Care data breach settlement is scheduled for Aug. 15, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 11, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose information was compromised in a data breach on April 25, 2023. Potential Award Varies according to the type of data compromised. Proof of Purchase Documentation and attestation supporting claims, either for extraordinary out-of-pocket losses and lost-time benefits or a pro rata cash payment and lost-time benefits. 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 07/11/2025 Case Name Tambroni, et al. v. WellNow Urgent Care P.C., et al., Case No. 2025LA000013, in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois Final Hearing 08/15/2025 Settlement Website WellNowDataSecuritySettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 421-4559 Class Counsel David Almeida Britany Kabakov ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Laura Van Note COLE & VAN NOTE LLP Brandon Wise PEIFFER WOLFE CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLC Andrew Heldut Evan Meyers MCGUIRE LAW P.C. Defense Counsel Jena Valdetero Christopher Dodrill GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP [GN] WHITLEY PEANUT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Whitley Peanut Factory, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05068 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://whitleyspeanut.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase salted peanuts so she conducted a Google search for salted Virginia peanuts and discovered Defendant's website. However, upon visiting the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient. When attempting to access the desired category from the navigation submenu, she was unable to do so using either the Enter or Spacebar keys. As a result, she could not proceed with the purchasing process, as she was unable to access the desired category. These access barriers have caused Whitleyspeanut.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Whitley Peanut Factory's policies, practices, and procedures to that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Whitley Peanut Factory, Inc. operates the website that offers various types of peanuts, including salted, seasoned, roasted-in-shell, unsalted, and sweet peanuts in different flavors like white, milk, and dark chocolate, as well as cashews, nut mixes, peanut cases, and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law WTC COMPANIES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WTC COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03826 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://tokinjew.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on May 7, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a T-Shirt from Defendant and to view the information on the website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. WTC Companies, LLC operates the website that offers edibles, apparel and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal YRV ENTERPRISE: Alvarez Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVAREZ, et. al., v. YRV ENTERPRISE, LLC, et. al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00701-LKG (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification of a collective Action, identification of potential collective action members, and approval of notice to potential collective action members. For the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs’ accompanying Memorandum in Support, Plaintiffs request this Court grant the Motion. YRV is a digital marketing and software solutions company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ZlSdc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. Samantha Braver, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1050 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com sbraver@hfajustice.com ZIGNEGO CO: Cardenas Class Action Settlement Gets Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the joint motion for approval of the settlement in the case captioned as MARISOL CARDENAS, v. ZIGNEGO CO., INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00961 (E.D. Wisc.). The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved the requested attorney's fees, costs, and incentive award, and dismissed the case with prejudice, pending any timely objections or appeals. The parties reached a settlement after over two years of litigation, including discovery and two mediation sessions with a magistrate judge. In December 2024, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and certified the FLSA collective class and Rule 23 class, appointing Cardenas as class representative. Defendant provided data on overtime hours worked, enabling class counsel to compute gross payouts totaling $461,927.88 for class members (excluding Cardenas), comprising: (1) $2.50 per overtime hour on federal jobs and $8.63 on non-federal jobs, (2) additional overtime pay for training time, (3) straight-time pay for Cardenas' drug testing, and (4) liquidated damages. After deducting requested attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards, the net payout to class members (excluding Cardenas) was $341,115.32. This is a collective and class action brought by Cardenas against Zignego on behalf of herself and similarly situated current and former hourly employees and truck drivers. Plaintiff, an hourly employee, filed the action on August 22, 2022, alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by: (1) excluding health and welfare (H&W) pay from FLSA regular rates for overtime calculations, (2) failing to pay time-and-a-half overtime for non-prevailing wage projects, (3) not counting training time as hours worked, and (4) failing to compensate for time spent on mandated post-accident drug testing. Plaintiff amended her complaint twice, in December 2022 and December 2023, with court approval. On behalf of an FLSA collective class of non-office hourly employees who worked for Defendant on or after February 17, 2020, and a Rule 23 class of hourly employees who received H&W and overtime pay between August 22, 2020, and February 20, 2024, Plaintiff alleged violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and Wisconsin Stat. Section 109.03. Plaintiff sought unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. Class counsel mailed settlement notices to 230 class members, successfully reaching 225. By April 4, 2025, only one class member opted out, and no objections were filed. In evaluating the settlement, the court applied the Seventh Circuit's fairness factors, emphasizing the strength of Plaintiff's case balanced against the settlement amount. The parties acknowledged genuine disputes over liability, including whether Defendant failed to properly include H&W pay, training time, and drug testing time in wage calculations. Continued litigation would have been complex, costly, and uncertain. The minimal opposition (one opt-out) and class counsel's support further justified approval. Class counsel requested $176,417 in attorney's fees and costs for approximately 211 hours of work, less than one-third of the $529,533.53 common fund after $673.50 in costs. The court approved this amount under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Wis. Stat. Section 109.03(6). Additionally, the court approved an $8,885.77 incentive award for Cardenas, recognizing her efforts in initiating the case, filing declarations, and attending mediations, which benefited the class. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jm8lxN from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant Zignego Co Inc. is represented by: Mitchell W Quick, Esq. Devin S Hayes, Esq. Elizabeth A Odian, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP Tel: 414-271-6560 E-mail: mwquick@michaelbest.com dshayes@michaelbest.com eaodian@michaelbest.com Plaintiff Marison Cardenas is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM SC Tel: 414-271-4500 E-mail: yh@previant.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Huiskamp Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kelly Huiskamp, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, a Delaware corporation Case No. 25-2-01489-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Clark, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00930. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a single cause of action against ZoomInfo, the sole defendant, under Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act, and seeks to certify a class of "all Colorado residents whose cell phone numbers were listed" on ZoomInfo's service, in alleged violation of that statute.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, WSBA no. 59991 EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, New York Phone: 646.837.7127 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Alicia Cobb, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 905-7000 Email: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***