250603.mbx

250603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 110 Headlines 15 LAGRANGE STREET: Forland Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ABACUS BUSINESS CAPITAL: Cuz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ABC INSURANCE: Schutte Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Glenn Due Dec. 12 ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Birmingham Suit Discovery to End June 13 AEGON USA: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smith Insurance Lawsuit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Schott Suit ALPHABET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in AMI Suit Due Oct. 30 AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend COLCRYS(R) Suit in NY AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend MDL No. 2724 AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit in NJ AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: June 12 Hearing on Bid to Junk "Leonard" AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: MDL 2924 Set for Oral Argument in 11th Cir. AMS ROOFING: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages and Overtime ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Saniga Suit Says ANISSA DE LA CRUZ: Hooper Files Suit in E.D. California APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Schedule APR US INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Filing in Fernandez Due March 6, 2026 ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Loses Bid for Class Certification ASTRAZENECA PLC: Saleh Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ATP: Players' Motion for Relief Under Rule 23(d) Granted in Part ATTALA COMMUNITY CARE: Clayton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime BENIHANA NATIONAL: Schmidt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BERKMAN FUNDING: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York CARVANA CO: Wins Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit CDHA MANAGEMENT: Faces E.W. Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CENTRIC DENIM USA: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in Ohio CERENCE INC. Continues to Defend BIPA Suit in Illinois CERNER CORPORATION: Beard Sues Over Data Security Incident CIGNA GROUP: Reven Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA CIVITAS RESOURCES: Continues to Defend "Lin" Suit in New Jersey CLASSIC CHEVROLET: Stokes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Carillo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI CLIPPER REALTY: Must File Bid for Summary Judgment by July 28 CNO FINANCIAL: June 16 Trial in "Burnett" Breach of Contract Claim COCA-COLA: Bosque Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Panthaki Suit Says COINBASE GLOBAL: Shakib Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info COMFORTWEAR COLLECTIONS: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Mitchell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend "Pang" Suit CORECIVIC INC: ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing CREDIT ASSOCIATES: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought CRESCA CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Vargas Gets Initial Nod CRISLU CORP: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Kye Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York CURO PET LLC: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Settlement in Miller Suit Granted Final Approval DESMOND FOODS: Del Rio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIAMONDERE INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Ghaemmaghami Due May 1, 2026 DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas DOUGLAS COLLINS: Preliminary Injunction Bid in Gober Suit Denied ELEVADO DRINKS: Smith Files Suit Over Hemp Infused Cocktails EMPIRE MERCHANTS: McGovern Files FCRA Suit in N.D. New York ENCORE CAPITAL: Kuzminski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ENJOY THE CITY: Hewett Files TCPA Suit in E.D. North Carolina ETN AMERICA INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania FIESTA TABLEWARE: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRST EAGLE FUNDS: Dandini Sues Over Misleading Statements FIRST STUDENT: Effat Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia FLEMING & BARNES: Topete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Langwell Suit Removed to S.D. California FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Willson FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio FORWARD AIR: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Tennessee FORWARD SOLUTIONS: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Wages GATEWAY PROPERTY: Bland Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 GBT US LLC: Galeas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL CONFERENCE: Chelder Sues Over Breach of Contract and Fraud GENERAL DYNAMICS: 4th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of D'Armiento Suit HARMONY LEADS: Wins Bid to Bifurcate TCPA Suit Discovery Schedule HEAR.COM LLC: Oblak Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation HERSHEY COMPANY: Noohi Suit Removed to C.D. California HUMANSCALE CORP: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind INDIVIOR INC: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INDIVIOR INC: Amatucci Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INDIVIOR INC: Augusta Files Suit in N.D. Ohio INTEL CORPORATION: Schiassi Suit Transferred to D. Delaware JARED HOY: Court Allows Fifth Amendment Takings Claim to Proceed JESUS GUADARRAMA: Harnage Suit Plaintiff Can't Assert Class Claims JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tosses Milan, et al. Bills Pay Lawsuit JUMP TRADING: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kim, et al. Suit KELLY ASSOCIATES: Emery Files Suit in D. Maryland KERRY INC: Washington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington KIMLEY-HORN: Dismissal of Antezana, et al. Suit Affirmed in Part KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Labor Suit Dismissed KLOVER HOLDINGS: Moss Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois KURDISTAN GOV't: Court Tosses Kurdistan Victims Fund, et al. Suit LABRASCA PLASTIC: Smith Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Court Defers Resolution of Motion to Dismiss LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Narrows Claims in Doe-1, et al. FCRA Suit LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada LIVE VENTURES: Sanchez Labor Class Suit Mediation Set for June 2025 LIVEPERSON INC: Appeal on Damri Stockholder Suit Dismissal Pending LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit LUZZO'S MANAGEMENT: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MADRUGA IRON WORKS: Cole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAHANOY SCI: Court Affirms Dismissal of Wyatt Civil Rights Suit MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in SDNY MATTHEW WARREN: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California MAXIMUS INC: MOVEit Cybersecurity Suit Limited Discovery Ongoing MCLAREN HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Wehrle Says MONEY SOURCE: Class Certification Granted in Hiller TCPA Lawsuit MORSE OPERATIONS: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wilbur Says NELNET SERVICING: Wins Bid for Partial Dismissal of Stevens Suit NEVADA: Court Dismisses Gonzaga Class Suit NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Initial Nod NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Ewing Due June 6 NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Jackson Due June 6 NEXSTAR MEDIA: Local TV Advertising MDL Trial Set for April 2026 NUVIA MSO: Dixon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OLAM ADVISERS: Shields Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California PCAM LLC: Imran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEAK 24 LLC: Faces M.K. Suit Over Negligent Sales Practices PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Deforest Sues Over Misleading Advertising PHILIPS: SoClean, DW's Bid to Dismiss CPAP Complaint Denied as Moot POWERSCHOOL GROUP: North Country Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. PREMIER NUTRITION: Issue Preclusion Granted in Dent Class Action PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Rose Bid for Class Certification Tossed PROCTER & GAMBLE: Perkins Suit Removed to S.D. California PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Williams Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation QUALITY CARRIERS: Class Allegations in Smith, et al. Suit Stricken R & S TOWER SERVICES: Wors Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages REBUILT BROKERAGE: Class Certification Hearing in Chavez Cancelled REPUBLIC SERVICES: Overcharged Customers Thru Unfair Fees, GF Says RICKY DIXON: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Reply SAMMANN CO: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SAMSONITE COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SANTA MONICA, CA: More Time to File Bid for Settlement OK Sought SARAH FLINT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Says SAZERAC CO: Can File Certain Sensitive Materials Under Seal SEALY INC: Liu, et al. Second Wage Suit to Remain in Federal Court SEALY INC: Liu, et al. Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court SEAWORLD: Settlement in Coppel, et al. Suit. Gets Prelim. Court OK SILVER DOLLAR: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Strobert Says SIMONMED IMAGING: Schwanke Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SIPALA LANDSCAPE: Rubio Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SMTC MANUFACTURING: Motion to Compel Arbitration Held in Abeyance SPARC GROUP: 5th Cir. Certifies Question on CPA Injury Element STATE FARM: Young Bid to Stay Class Certification Tossed STEELSCAPE: Settlement in Jenkins Suit Gets Preliminary Court Nod STERLING: Settlement in Grissom Suit Obtains Final Court Approval STIIIZY INC: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California STURM RUGER: Settlement Class in Jones Suit Gets Certification SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cavaluzzi, et al. Suit SURESITE CONSULTING: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California SV SUPER: Ruben Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware TAPIS CORPORATION: Standing Order Entered in Nicholls Suit TELEPHONE AND DATA: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit THELENDINGFAMILY.COM: Plaintiff's Bid for Alternate Service Denied TIP-TOP ROOFING: Good Luck Joins Bid to Stay Class Certification TIP-TOP ROOFING: JJL Seeks to Stay Class Cert Pending Arbitration TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: DePietro Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York TRIGRAM: Ample Luck Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Marchese Suit UNION LEAGUE GOLF: Kryszczak Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas UNITED AIRLINES: Tijerina Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court UNITED STATES: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Hymas Suit UTAH: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Maxfield, et al. Suit VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford Seeks Leave to Amend Class Complaint VIVID SEATS: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind VOGUE INTERNATIONAL: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Synder Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification WEBCOLLEX LLC: Gutierrez's Gets Default Judgment WESTERN FIRST: Class Cert Filing in Brown Due March 6, 2026 WILKES BARRE, PA: Arias Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 3 WORKFORCE7 INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to June 6 WORLD MARKET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey False Advertising Suit WVMF FUNDING: Bid for Summary Judgment Stricken in Renois Suit ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss LaRock WPRA Lawsuit ZRALOV INC: Masich Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ********* 15 LAGRANGE STREET: Forland Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Symore Forland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 15 LAGRANGE STREET CORPORATION, d/b/a THE GLASS SLIPPER, and DAVID ROMANO, an individual; and WILLIAM L. BENNETT JR., Case No. 1:25-cv-11444 (D. Mass., May 21, 2025), is brought for damages resulting from their failure to comply with the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for unlawfully retaining a portion of Plaintiff's earned tips. These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. During her time being employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." As a result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiff seeks to recover double damages for failure to pay minimum wage, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer/entertainer for Defendants from January 2024 to February 2024. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 53 State Street, Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-913-0363 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com ABACUS BUSINESS CAPITAL: Cuz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abacus Business Capital. The case is styled as Zoila Cuz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Abacus Business Capital d/b/a Island Pacific Seafood Market, Case No. 25STCV14943 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Abacus Capital -- https://www.abacuscapital.com/ -- is an Asset Management and Advisory group headquartered in Singapore with operations in Indonesia and partnerships in Southeast Asia.[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 ABC INSURANCE: Schutte Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA SCHUTTE, v. ABC INSURANCE CO., PROHEALTH CARE, INC., and DEF INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, -- appointing the plaintiff as class representative, and -- appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. The proposed class covers persons who have been illegally charged "paper copy" rates for electronic copies of patient health care records by the defendant ProHealth Care, Inc. The proposed class meets all of the requirements of Rule 23 necessary to certify a class that will allow the class members to recover the fees that the defendant ProHealth Care, Inc., illegally charged and collected from the class members and be granted other relief they may be entitled to under Wisconsin law, including exemplary damages, costs and attorney's fees, asserts the suit. ABC offers life, health, pension, and accident insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Suqfnm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett A. Eckstein, Esq. Julie A. Leary, Esq. CANNON & DUNPHY, S.C. 595 North Barker Road Brookfield, WI 53008-1750 Telephone:(262) 796-3702 Facsimile: (262) 796-3712 E-mail: beckstein@c-dlaw.com ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Glenn Due Dec. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKKA GLENN, v. ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC and MANDARICHLAW GROUP, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-00198-TJC-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to mediation: Deadline for providing mandatory initial May 19, 2025 disclosures: Deadline for disclosing expert reports. Plaintiff: Aug. 27, 2025 Defendant: Sept. 26, 2025 Rebuttal: Oct. 24, 2025 Deadline for completing discovery and filing Nov. 10, 2025 motions to compel: Deadline for moving for class certification: Dec. 12, 2025 Mediation: Oct. 1, 2025 Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Sept. 17, 2026 statement and all other motions including motions in limine: Absolute has specialized in the purchase and recovery of distressed consumer receivables. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hltoOp at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Birmingham Suit Discovery to End June 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals 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 7, 2025, that the City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems class suit expert discovery to end on June 13, 2025. On April 19, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative securities class action complaint (captioned City of Birmingham Relief Retirement Systems v. Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-0762) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's then-current executive officers. On September 29, 2021, the Court issued an order designating lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 10, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by failing to disclose that the materials submitted in support of its sNDA seeking approval of pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with dementia-related psychosis contained statistical and design deficiencies and that the FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA in its current form. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 11, 2024, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. The parties are currently engaged in expert discovery, which is scheduled to close on June 13, 2025. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc., based in San Diego, California, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders and rare diseases. AEGON USA: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Smith Insurance Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled as Velma Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Aegon USA, L.L.C., doing business as Transamerica; Transamerica Life Insurance Company; Aegon Direct Marketing Services, Incorporated, formerly known as Aegon Special Marketing Services, Incorporated; Penney OpCo, L.L.C., doing business as JCPenney, formerly known as JC Penney, Incorporated; TCS e-Serve International Limited; Tata Consultancy Services Limited; Tata American International Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Judges James L. Dennis, Catharina Haynes and Irma Carrillo Ramirez of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissing Velma Smith's claims, prior to class certification, for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On June 5, 2023, Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of the duty to a third-party beneficiary, and declaratory judgment, against Transamerica, e-Serve, Penney OpCo, LLC (OpCo), Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCSL), and Tata America International Corporation (TAIC), alleging that they had worked collectively to deny insureds' valid insurance claims or delay the claims process significantly. All defendants moved to dismiss Smith's complaint. OpCo and TAIC included sworn declarations with their motions; Smith did not provide a competing declaration or affidavit. The district court dismissed the claims against both OpCo and TAIC for a lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Smith could not show a sufficient nexus between her claims and their contacts with the forum state. It dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants for failure to state a claim. Smith appeals both rulings. Smith challenges the dismissal of her claims against OpCo and TAIC for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the district court relied too heavily on her failure to provide an affidavit or declaration in response to the defendants' sworn declarations. The Fifth Circuit finds the district court did not err in dismissing the claims against OpCo and TAIC for a lack of personal jurisdiction. According to the Fifth Circuit, there is no sufficient link between Smith's claims and OpCo's contacts with Mississippi. TAIC's ties to Mississippi are also insufficient to support a finding of specific personal jurisdiction. Smith also contends that the district court erred by dismissing her claims against the remaining defendants for failure to state a claim. Regarding Smith's breach of contract claims against TCSL and eServe, she has not alleged or identified a contract between her and each of them. Without a contract, there is no breach of contract action against either defendant. According to the Fifth Circuit, the district court did not err when it dismissed Smith's breach of contract claim against Transamerica. The Circuit Judges say, "Smith failed to identify any misconduct by Transamerica that would constitute a breach. It timely paid Smith what she was owed after it was properly notified of her claim. We find no error in the dismissal of this claim." Like her breach of contract claims against TCSL and e-Serve, Smith's bad faith claims against them also fail because she has not alleged or identified a contract with either party, the Fifth Circuit finds. She has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that Transamerica lacked an arguable or legitimate basis for its "delay." The district court did not err in dismissing this claim. Smith has not stated a valid claim that entitles her to any relief, the Fifth Circuit concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VedHoM ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Schott Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SCHOTT and ANGELA THOMAS, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:24-cv-00136-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order: -- granting Allstate Insurance Company's motion to dismiss; -- granting Allstate's motion to dismiss as to Counts III -- (declaratory judgment) and IV (equitable relief) but denying it as to Counts I (breach of contract) and II (fraud); and -- denying Allstate's motion to strike the putative class allegations for the breach of contract and fraud claims. The Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for retrospective declaratory and injunctive relief because those claims are duplicative of their breach of contract claim and otherwise serve no legitimate legally authorized purpose. The Plaintiffs allege that when their insured vehicles were totaled, Allstate paid less than actual cash value for the total losses because although Allstate properly considered the advertised prices of comparable vehicles in determining a totaled vehicle's pre-loss value, Allstate improperly applied a "condition adjustment" to each comparable vehicle and thereby deflated the actual cash value of the totaled vehicle. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated Georgia policyholders who they contend were underpaid for total losses based on an impermissible "condition adjustment." Allstate is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d5EUJ6 at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHABET INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in AMI Suit Due Oct. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMI -- GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., et al., v. ALPHABET INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Last Day to Amend Pleadings: July 21, 2025 Joint Letter re: Mediator and Mediation Date: Aug. 8, 2025 Last Day to File Motion for Class Oct. 30, 2025 Certification and Expert Disclosures and Reports Relating to Class Certification: Last Day to File Opposition to Class Jan. 13, 2026 Certification and Rebuttal Expert Disclosures and Reports Relating to Class Certification: Last Day to File Reply in Support of Class Mar. 17, 2026 Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Apr. 14, 2026 Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3fwehM at no extra charge.[CC] AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend COLCRYS(R) Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself in the purported class action lawsuit alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R) in the Southern District of New York, 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. On November 14, 2023, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and other health plans filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against multiple manufacturers, including the Company, alleging an illegal conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS(R). See UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund et al. v. Takeda Pharma. U.S.A., Inc. et al, No. 1:23-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y.). On February 28, 2024, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 13, 2024 and March 27, 2024, Amneal submitted a letter and brief, respectively, informing the Court of its position that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction over Amneal. That motion remains pending and the deadline to respond to the complaint is set at 45 days after the court resolves the motion to transfer. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend MDL No. 2724 -------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself in the multiple putative antitrust class action captioned In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724 (E.D. Pa.), 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. Beginning in March 2016, various purchasers of generic drugs filed multiple putative antitrust class action complaints against a substantial number of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including the Company and Impax Laboratories, Inc. ("Impax"), alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers. They seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (See In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724 (E.D. Pa.)) ("MDL No. 2724"). In 2019 and 2020, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico named the Company in two complaints alleging a similar conspiracy and seeking similar damages. These cases are pending in the District of Connecticut. See Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00710-MPS and Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00802-MPS. Fact discovery is underway in MDL No. 2724 and in the State Attorneys General cases naming the Company as a defendant. Expert discovery is complete in Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00802-MPS. In Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00802-MSP, defendants' joint motions for summary judgement were fully briefed on April 7, 2025, and defendant-specific motions for summary judgement are due in July 2025. In Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00710-MPS, defendants jointly moved to dismiss the complaint and Amneal individually moved to dismiss the states' Ranitidine, Bethanechol, and overarching conspiracy claims. These motions were fully briefed on February 14, 2025. In MDL No. 2724, defendants including the Company and Impax jointly moved to dismiss certain complaints in December 2024. Amneal individually moved to dismiss plaintiffs' Bethanechol Chloride claims in American Airlines, Inc., et al v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al, 2:24-cv-01430. These motions were fully briefed on February 20, 2025. The MDL Court ordered that trials for the first multi-district litigation ("MDL") cases chosen for bellwether treatment, none of which name the Company or Impax as defendants, will begin August 8, 2025. The MDL Court has identified the second round of MDL cases chosen for bellwether treatment, one of which names Impax as a defendant. No scheduling orders have been set. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Metformin Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., continues to defend itself in the putative class action lawsuits relating to the purchase of the generic metformin in New Jersey, 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. Beginning in 2020, Amneal was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly incurred in connection with their purchase of generic metformin allegedly contaminated with NDMA. See In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH) ("In re Metformin"), Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.), and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.). On January 7, 2025, the court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in In re Metformin without prejudice and granted plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. On February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in In re Metformin, which incorporated the allegations of plaintiff Brice and plaintiff Hann, and then filed notices of voluntary dismissal of Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.) and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.) as standalone actions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' response in opposition was filed on April 7, 2025 and defendants' reply was filed on April 22, 2025. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: June 12 Hearing on Bid to Junk "Leonard" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 its motion to dismiss the putative class suit captioned Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-06280 (N.D. Cal.). is scheduled to be heard on June 12, 2025. On September 5, 2024, Amneal was named as a defendant along with CVS Pharmacy, Inc., in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that generic guaifenesin products manufactured by Amneal contain benzene through the use of carbomer, an inactive ingredient. See Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-06280 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint purports to plead, on behalf of a nationwide class and California subclass, the following counts: breach of warranty; unjust enrichment; fraud; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages, restitution, other equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 30, 2024, the Company and CVS jointly filed a motion to dismiss. On January 21, 2025, in lieu of filing a response to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on February 20, 2025, plaintiff filed her response to the motion to dismiss on March 24, 2025, and defendants filed their reply on April 14, 2025. That motion is fully briefed, and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 12, 2025. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: MDL 2924 Set for Oral Argument in 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924) is set for oral argument for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The Company was named, along with numerous other brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, retail pharmacy chains, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products in a federal MDL (In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924), Southern District of Florida). Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or "NDMA") in ranitidine products and the alleged associated risk of cancer. The MDL Court's dismissal of claims by all plaintiffs against the Company and other generic drug manufacturers on preemption grounds is on appeal in the 11th Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their merits brief on April 10, 2024. The generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, filed their briefs on July 25, 2024. Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed November 8, 2024. The briefing also addresses the MDL Court's December 6, 2022 exclusion of plaintiff's general causation experts. The 11th Circuit will set an oral argument date in July 2025. AMS ROOFING: Navarro Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages and Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Orbanel Navarro, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. AMS ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-00426 (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover the unpaid back wages owed, overtime compensation, to him and all other current and former roof installers employed by the Defendant. The Defendant employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated roof installers but failed to pay them the appropriate overtime pay in overtime weeks as required by the FLSA. The Defendant's practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated roof installers lawful overtime compensation for all of their hours worked over 40 each workweek violates the overtime provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a roof installer in 2009. AMS, was, and continues to be, a Florida Limited Liability Company registered to do business within Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954-327-5369 Fax: 954-327-3016 Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com ANDY FRAIN: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Saniga Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SANIGA, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANDY FRAIN SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05333 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Due to the intentionally obfuscating language of Defendant's breach notice, it is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII, the suit alleges. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Plaintiff's PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Andy Frain Services, Inc. offers security services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ANISSA DE LA CRUZ: Hooper Files Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anissa De La Cruz, et al. The case is styled as Alexis Hooper, and the class of similarly situated persons she seeks to represent v. Anissa De La Cruz, Isidro Arroyo, C. Mendoza, Michael Felix, V. Ramolete, Becerra, Case No. 1:25-cv-00610-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal., May 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. De La Cruz has served as CCWF acting warden since 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Merin, Esq. Paul Hajime Masuhara, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 443-6911 Fax: (916) 447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com paul@markmerin.com APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06829 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting stipulation extending class certification briefing schedule. -- The parties shall submit for the Court's approval a specific briefing schedule for the class certification motion by no later than noon on May 30, 2025. -- The Court reminds the parties to comply with Local Rule 6-2 in filing stipulated requests to change time future stipulations unsupported by a declaration of counsel will likely be denied. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Diversity-Other Contract. The Defendant is an apartment management company.[CC] APR US INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Apr US, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05654 (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://pfcandleco.com (https://medicube.us (hereinafter "Medicube.us" 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, Medicube.us, 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. Apr US provides to the public a website known as Medicube.us which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view facial cleansers and masks, moisturizers and creams, serums, sunscreens, skincare devices, toners, essences.[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 ARAMARK UNIFORM: Class Cert Filing in Fernandez Due March 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE FERNANDEZ; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07711-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina Snyder entered an order continuing class certification hearing and briefing schedule 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: Aramark is a supplier of rental uniforms and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o3uYIC at no extra charge.[CC] ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malachi Mickelon v. Aspyr Media, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without leave to amend. The Court deems moot Aspyr's motions to strike the Plaintiffs offering of Dr. Andrea Lynn Matthews' declaration and the expert report of Wade C. Roberts, as well as the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that persons who viewed the Restored Content DLC trailer, or any other advertisements, cannot be identified through any reliable and manageable means, and therefore the proposed class does not satisfy the predominance factor. The Plaintiffs move for class certification as to the following twelve (12) classes (the "Sub-Classes"): California Class: "All persons in the State of California who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Arizona Class: "All persons in the State of Arizona who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Colorado Class: "All persons in the State of Colorado who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Florida Class: "All persons in the State of Florida who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Georgia Class: "All persons in the State of Georgia who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Nevada Class: "All persons in the State of Nevada who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." New Jersey Class: "All persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Ohio Class: "All persons in the State of Ohio who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Oregon Class: "All persons in the State of Oregon who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." South Carolina Class: "All persons in the State of South Carolina who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Texas Class: "All persons in the State of Texas who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Washington Class: "All persons in the State of Washington who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period. The Plaintiffs bring this action for restitution, damages, penalties, and injunctive relief resulting from Aspyr's conduct with respect to certain of its production, distribution, marketing, advertising and sale of "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords" ("KOTOR II"). Aspyr is a video game developer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cvukY9 at no extra charge.[CC] ASTRAZENECA PLC: Saleh Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Jeries Saleh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AstraZeneca PLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11021, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-04088-VSB to the proceeding. The class action is brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. AstraZeneca PLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Cambridge, England. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq. BIRD MARELLA RHOW LINCENBERG DROOKS AND NESSIM LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 E-mail: gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com - and - Charles S. Duggan, Esq. Corey M. Meyer, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP (NYC) 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4785 Facsimile: (212) 450-3785 E-mail: charles.duggan@dpw.com corey.meyer@davispolk.com - and - Jonathan Karmen Chang, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 752-2043 E-mail: genivive.garcia@davispolk.com - and - Mari Grace, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 1050 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 962-7000 E-mail: mari.byrne@davispolk.com ATP: Players' Motion for Relief Under Rule 23(d) Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for relief under Rule 23(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the class action lawsuit captioned as VASEK POSPISIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- ATP TOUR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-02207-MMG (S.D.N.Y.). On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs, comprised of professional tennis players and The Professional Tennis Players Association, brought this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all current, former, and future professional tennis players who compete in tournaments and events operated by Defendants ATP Tour, Inc.; WTA Tour, Inc.; International Tennis Federation Ltd.; and International Tennis Integrity Agency Ltd., challenging Defendants' allegedly anticompetitive practices under federal antitrust laws. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants and their co-conspirators have unlawfully fixed the compensation professional tennis players may earn, restricted and locked in players' exclusive participation in tours organized by Defendants, restricted other tournament operators' ability to compete with Defendants' tournaments and events, and abused various anti-doping and anti-corruption programs. They assert nine causes of action against various Defendants, including violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action); violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action); and common law unjust enrichment (Ninth Cause of Action). ATP is a named defendant in each cause of action. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, damages, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a letter-motion requesting that, pursuant to Rule 23(d), the Court enter an order: (i) restricting all Defendants from engaging in future communications with putative class members; (ii) requiring all Defendants to disclose all prior communications with putative class members regarding this action; (iii) requiring all Defendants to preserve all communications relating to their efforts to approach and ask putative class members to sign paperwork condemning this action; and (iv) authorizing Plaintiffs to issue a corrective statement. Plaintiffs allege that ATP has: (i) threatened putative class members that, if this litigation persists, ATP plans to reduce their compensation, including prize money and pensions, to offset ATP's attorneys' fees; (ii) confronted at least one player in a highly sensitive location within his place of work with a pen and paper seeking the player's signature on a letter opposing this lawsuit, and refused that player's request to show the letter to his attorneys; and (iii) attempted to pressure players to sign statements stating that they had no prior knowledge of this action, when they did have prior knowledge. On March 23, 2025, ATP filed a letter-response, contesting nearly all of the allegations in the Motion, including that ATP had made any false or misleading statements, violated any putative class member's rights, or interfered in any way with the administration of this action. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the parties' submissions, and the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that ATP's conduct to date, regardless of intent, could readily have been viewed by potential class members as potentially coercive, deceptive, or otherwise abusive, which warrants limited relief under Rule 23(d). The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that: (1) Defendant ATP is prohibited from retaliating, or threatening retaliation, directly or indirectly, against any putative class member who is a member of ATP, for considering participating in or ultimately deciding to participate in this action; (2) Defendant ATP is directed to distribute the Court's attached corrective notice to all putative class members who are members of ATP informing them: (i) of the existence of this action; (ii) that they have not waived any right to participate in this action by virtue of signing the ATP position statement, which has no legal effect on their status as potential class members; and (iii) that ATP is prohibited from retaliating, or threatening retaliation, directly or indirectly, against any putative class member for considering participating in or ultimately deciding to participate in this action; and (3) Defendant ATP is ordered to preserve all communications related to their efforts to communicate with players about this litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QnJrC4 from PacerMonitor.com. ATTALA COMMUNITY CARE: Clayton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Destiny Clayton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ATTALA COMMUNITY CARE CENTER, LLC, Case: 4:25-cv-00067-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss., May 22, 2025), is brought challenging the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") due to unpaid overtime compensation. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation required by the FLSA results from generally applicable policies or practices and does not depend on the personal circumstances of Plaintiff or the Collective Manbers. Although the exact amount of damages may vary among the Collective Members, the damages for the Collective Members can be easily calculated by a simple formula. The claims of all Collective Members arise from a common nucleus of facts. Liability is based on a systematic course of wrongful conduct by Defendant that caused harm to all the Collective Members The Defendant was aware or should have been aw are that federal law prohibited them from not paying their employees all overtime wages as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Attala Community Care Center, LLC until December of 2024 as a certified nursing assistant ("CEIA"). The Defendant operates a skilled nursing facility in Attala County, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Phone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com BENIHANA NATIONAL: Schmidt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benihana National Corp. The case is styled as Thomas H. Schmidt, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Benihana National Corp., Case No. 25STCV14725 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Benihana Inc. -- https://www.benihana.com/ -- is an operator of teppanyaki-style restaurants.[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 BERKMAN FUNDING: Rowan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkman Funding LLC. The case is styled as Nathan Rowan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Berkman Funding LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02812 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Berkman Funding LLC -- https://www.berkmanfinancial.com/ -- specialize in working with small and medium-sized private businesses that are looking for a variety of financial products and solutions.[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 CARVANA CO: Wins Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Carvana Co. 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 won partial dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit pending in Arizona. On August 3, 2022, a putative class action complaint titled John Brent v. Carvana Co., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of the Company's executive officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of stockholders and asserts violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of fees, costs, and expenses. On September 29, 2022, a second putative class action complaint titled Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. Carvana Co., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging similar claims, and seeking the same form of relief. The two cases were then consolidated and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") as In re Carvana Co. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. CV-22-2126-PHX-MTL). On February 14, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the Arizona District Court, alleging new claims for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and naming as new defendants certain Carvana directors, officers, and underwriters. The Arizona District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 29, 2024 and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which was filed on March 29, 2024. On December 16, 2024, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, as amended, was granted with respect to alleged violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, granted in part and denied in part with respect to alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act, and denied with respect to alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act. "The Company is engaged in discovery and intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining claims under this action in all respects. At this time, the Company is not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to estimate the amount or range of potential losses, if any, from this action," the Company stated. CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cassava Sciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Between August 27, 2021 and October 26, 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain named officers. The complaints rely on allegations contained in Citizen Petitions submitted to FDA and allege that various statements made by the defendants regarding simufilam were rendered materially false and misleading. The Citizen Petitions were all subsequently denied by FDA. These actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers. On June 30, 2022, a federal judge consolidated the four class action lawsuits into one case and appointed a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2022 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities between September 14, 2020 and July 26, 2022. On May 11, 2023, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims against defendant Nadav Friedmann, PhD, MD, the its former Chief Medical Officer and a Company director, who is now deceased, but otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on July 3, 2023. On February 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement their complaint to extend the putative class period through October 12, 2023. The court granted that Motion on June 12, 2024, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint on June 13, 2024. On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a second motion to supplement their complaint. On March 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. On February 25, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without prejudice, explaining that rulings on pending motions, including specifically Plaintiffs' second motion to supplement their complaint, could affect disposition of class certification. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. Cassava Sciences -- http://www.cassavasciences.com/-- is an American pharmaceutical company based in Austin, Texas.[BN] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Fed. Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cassava Sciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On February 2, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities law by the Company and certain named officers. The complaint relies on an October 12, 2023 article that describes a purported leaked report of alleged scientific misconduct by a scientific collaborator of the Company at City University of New York. The complaint alleges that various statements made by the defendants regarding simufilam were rendered materially false and misleading by this article. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between August 18, 2022 and October 12, 2023. On May 28, 2024, the Northern District of Illinois transferred this action to the Western District of Texas. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. Cassava Sciences -- http://www.cassavasciences.com/-- is an American pharmaceutical company based in Austin, Texas.[BN] CDHA MANAGEMENT: Faces E.W. Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- E.W., by and through her parent and guardian ROSEANN LABRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS AND SPARK DSO, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02468 (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that was publicly disclosed by the Defendants on March 14, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendants inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff 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, says the suit. CDHA Management, LLC is a dental support organization headquartered in Pennsylvania that provides support services to over 60 dental practices in six U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CENTRIC DENIM USA: Lewis Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centric Denim USA, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Lewis, on behalf of of all others similarly situated v. Centric Denim USA, LLC, Case No. CACE25007409 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other." Centric Brands LLC -- https://centricbrands.com/ -- is a global leading lifestyle brand collective that has unparalleled expertise in product design, development and sourcing.[BN] CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ Centrus Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that discovery is ongoing for McGlone class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP (including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham (collectively, the "McGlone Plaintiffs") in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site. The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site; and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019, and on January 10, 2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations. On March 19, 2021, the court granted the McGlone Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed. As such, the discovery stage of litigation is continuing. On April 28, 2022, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the fourth amended complaint. The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the NRC's regulations. Further, the Company and Enrichment Corp. believe that any such liability should be indemnified under the Price-Anderson Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions. Centrus Energy Corp. (www.centrusenergy.com) supplies nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power plants and works to develop and deploy advanced centrifuge technology to produce enriched uranium for commercial and government uses, including for national security. CERENCE INC. Continues to Defend BIPA Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ Cerence 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 itself against the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On March 24, 2023, plaintiffs A.P., a minor, by and through her guardian, Carlos Pena, and Carlos Pena, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (Case. No. 2023CH02866 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 2023)). The case was removed to Federal Court (Case No. 1:23CV2667 (N.D. Ill.)), and then severed and remanded back in part, so there are two pending cases. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the federal complaint twice, with the latest second amended complaint, filed on July 13, 2023, adding plaintiffs Randolph Freshour and Vincenzo Allan, each also filing individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. through Cerence's Drive Platform technology, which is integrated in various automobiles. The named plaintiffs allegedly drove or rode in a vehicle with Cerence's Drive Platform technology. Across both cases, plaintiffs allege that Cerence violated: (1) BIPA Section 15(a) by possessing biometrics without any public written policy for their retention or destruction; (2) BIPA Section 15(b) by collecting, capturing, or obtaining biometrics without written notice or consent; (3) BIPA Section 15(c) by profiting from biometrics obtained from Plaintiffs and putative class members; and (4) BIPA Section 15(d) by disclosing biometrics to third party companies without consent. Cerence has filed motions to dismiss both cases. On February 27, 2024, the Circuit Court issued an order denying Cerence's motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2024, Cerence filed its answer and affirmative defenses, a motion to certify the Court's order on Cerence's motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay. Thereafter, in exchange for Cerence withdrawing its motions to certify and stay, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both the Circuit Court and Federal Court. Cerence's answers in the Federal Court and Circuit Court were due on July 15 and July 18, 2024, respectively, which the Company filed on such dates. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $5,000,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company said it cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. CERNER CORPORATION: Beard Sues Over Data Security Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Beard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERNER CORPORATION, D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and UNION HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00384-RK (W.D. Mo., May 21, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants (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 current and former patients of Defendants, the putative class members ("Class"). On April 21, 2025, Defendants mailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of his. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendants' computer network in a condition vulnerable to 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 Defendants, and thus Defendants were on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendants, through their employees, disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions. Defendants also failed to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach. In addition, Defendants' employees failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had Defendants' employees (presumably in the IT department) properly monitored its property, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner. Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendants' negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendants. Union Health is a healthcare provider and Defendant Oracle is a third-party vendor that provides data migration services to Union Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com CIGNA GROUP: Reven Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA REVEN, and ANTOINETTE ARGENTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CIGNA GROUP 401(K) PLAN RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02465 (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against The Cigna Group 401(k) Plan's fiduciary, the Defendant or the Retirement Plan Committee, for breaches of its fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as a "fiduciary" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and (2) failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. The Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries including Plaintiffs, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence, in violation of the law. Its actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty (Count II), and breach of ERISA's Anti-Inurement Provision (Count III). The Cigna Group is the sponsor of the Plan with a principal place of business at 1601 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com CIVITAS RESOURCES: Continues to Defend "Lin" Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- Civitas Resources, Inc., continues to defend itself against the securities class action lawsuit filed by Jeremy Lin, 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. On May 2, 2025, Jeremy Lin (the "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against us, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Complaint"). The Complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons and entities other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2024 and February 24, 2025 and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business, operations and prospects, including the Company's anticipated production volumes and financial condition in 2025. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. "The Company intend to vigorously defend against the claims brought by the Plaintiff in this matter. The Company cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom," the Company stated. CLASSIC CHEVROLET: Stokes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Chevrolet Sugar Land, LLC. The case is styled as Tanesia Stokes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Classic Chevrolet Sugar Land, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-02297 (S.D. Tex., May 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Classic Chevrolet Sugar Land of Sugar Land -- https://www.classicchevysugarland.com/ -- is one of the finest Sugar Land Chevrolet dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Carillo Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aurora Carillo, on behalf of her /minor children J.G., N.G., and Y.G., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05625 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") of her minor children—including, but not limited to, her children's full names, dates of birth, gender, and student ID number—and protected health information such as Medicaid ID numbers, ("PHI," and together with PII, "Private Information") accessed, compromised, and obtained by malicious, unauthorized third parties from Defendant's systems as early as December 2024 (the "Data Breach"). On March 10, 2025, CPS announced an unauthorized third party gained access to Cleo's network systems and obtained filed containing PII, including the PII of current and former students, including Plaintiff's minor children and Class Members. During their business operations, Defendant acquired, collected, utilized, and derived benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. Defendant owed and otherwise assumed statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common-law duties and obligations, including to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from the type of unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft that occurred in the Data Breach. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its secure file transfer services and applications, defendant maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and Class Members Private Information on its transfer services software that was negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers networks and systems, including Chicago Public Schools ("CPS"). These security vulnerabilities existed prior to the breach. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cyber criminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a current and ongoing risk of identity theft, which is heightened by the loss of Medicaid ID numbers of children. Upon information and belief, this Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's minor children J.G., N.G., and Y.G. are students at CPS. Cleo Communications is an Illinois based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (708) 628-4949 Email: dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com CLIPPER REALTY: Must File Bid for Summary Judgment by July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order as follows: -- The Defendants shall file a cross motion for summary judgment (if any), opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and/or opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion on or before July 28, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the cross motion for summary judgment (if any) and/or reply in further support of the motion for summary judgment and class certification on or before Aug. 11, 2025. -- The Defendants shall file a reply in further support of the cross motion for summary judgment (if any) on or before Aug. 18, 2025. Further, the deadline for the Defendants to provide contact information for opt-in plaintiffs is extended to on or before July 21, 2025, and the deadline for the parties to provide any revised proposed notice is extended to on or before July 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 171. Clipper Realty is a self-administered and self-managed real estate company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZdOk6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Paul A. Bartels, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 Facsimile: (516) 706-4692 E-mail: paul@belllg.com CNO FINANCIAL: June 16 Trial in "Burnett" Breach of Contract Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------ The jury trial on the breach of contract claim alleged in the class action captioned Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. is scheduled to begin on June 16, 2025, according to CNO Financial Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On October 5, 2012, plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp commenced an action entitled Burnett v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. against, among others, CNO Financial Group, Inc. and CNO Services, LLC (collectively, the "CNO Entities") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a putative class of former interest-sensitive whole life insurance policyholders who surrendered their policies or let them lapse. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleges that the CNO Entities are liable under an alter ego theory for Conseco Life Insurance Company's purported breach of the optional premium payment provision (the "Optional Premium Payment") and other provisions of plaintiffs' insurance policies. In January 2018, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On August 17, 2020, the Court denied the CNO Entities' motions to dismiss. On January 13, 2021, the Court granted final approval of a class action settlement between plaintiffs and co-defendant Conseco Life Insurance Company (n/k/a Wilco Life Insurance Company). The case remains pending against the CNO Entities. On March 25, 2022, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of under 2,000 policyholders who invoked the policy's Optional Premium Payment prior to October 2008 and who surrendered their policies between October 7, 2008 and September 1, 2011. The Court's certification order acknowledged the existence of individualized issues of causation and damages, which the Court stated could be addressed in individualized proceedings following a class trial on the alter ego allegations and the meaning of the subject insurance policy language. On September 25, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the CNO Entities' Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach of contract claim. On November 12, 2024, the Court granted CNO Entities' Motion to Bifurcate the trials of the breach of contract and alter ego claims. The jury trial on the breach of contract claim is scheduled to begin on June 16, 2025; the bench trial on the alter ego claim is scheduled to begin on August 12, 2025. "The CNO Entities continue to vigorously defend the case," the Company said. COCA-COLA: Bosque Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------- Monica Del Bosque, Jenna Rodriguez, Fabiola Solis-Garay, Nicole Ware, and Philip Watterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COCA-COLA SOUTHWEST BEVERAGES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01270-G (N.D. Tex., May 20, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciary, Coca-Cola Southwest Beverages LLC ("Coca-Cola SW" or the "Company"), for breaches of its fiduciary duties. To safeguard plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as a "fiduciary" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance; and failing to "defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan." The Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA. Its actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty (Count II), and breach of ERISA's Anti-Inurement Provision (Count III), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan. Coca-Cola SW is the sponsor of the Plan and a named fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. White, Esq. WARD + WHITE PLLC 114 1/2 E. Louisianna Street, Suite 206 McKinney, TX 75069 Phone: (469) 941-0040 Email: dwhite@wardwhitepllc.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Bernstein, Gina Greeder, and James Lonergan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. AND COINBASE, INC., Case: 1:25-cv-05313 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant who violates several laws, including Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), which was specifically enacted to regulate collecting, storing, and using biometric data with an array of notice, consent, and retention requirements. The Coinbase website and mobile app (collectively, “Coinbase Platform”) allow users to purchase, send, trade, and use crypto assets. To access the Coinbase Platform consumers are required to create a Coinbase account and verify their identity. Coinbase’s identity verification process uses facial recognition technology. Specifically, Coinbase requires users to upload a picture of their government-issued ID and a “selfie” with assistance from its third party vendors, Coinbase applies facial recognition technology to collect, analyze, measure, and catalog the composite distances between facial features like the nose, eyebrow, eyes, and chin, to verify the user’s identity. Coinbase’s wholesale collection of faceprints from all of its account holders violates BIPA because Coinbase fails to inform Plaintiffs in writing that their biometric identifiers (face geometry and face scans) and biometric information (collectively “biometric data”) were and are being generated, collected, stored, and disclosed; obtain prior written consent from Plaintiffs before generating, collecting, storing, and disclosing their biometric data; make publicly available the written policies, retention schedules, and guidelines applicable to its collection and retention of Plaintiffs’ biometric data; and obtain prior written consent before disclosing Plaintiffs’ biometric data to third parties, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Coinbase users. Coinbase is a multinational publicly traded company operating a cryptocurrency exchange that allows investors to buy, sell, and transfer over 250 cryptocurrencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark R. Miller, Esq. Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-261-6193 Email: mrm@wallacemiller.com mjg@wallacemiller.com - and - Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq. James M. Fee, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 Email: jgardner@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com jwaisnor@labaton.com jfee@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Panthaki Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zaal Panthaki and Alexander Crous, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL, and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04094 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2025) is a class action against Coinbase for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of millions of former and current Coinbase customers, including Plaintiffs. On May 15, 2025, Coinbase announced via an 8-K filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that an unnamed threat actor claimed (via a May 11, 2025 email) to have obtained information regarding Coinbase customers, names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, last four digits of social security numbers, Coinbase account information, bank account information, governmental-ID images, and account data, among other personal information. According to the complaint, Coinbase failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by Coinbase's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Coinbase Global, Inc. (together with its subsidiary, Coinbase, Inc.) is a major cryptocurrency company with its principal place of business in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Israel David, Esq. Adam. M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Shakib Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN SHAKIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. and COINBASE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04207 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other customers who had their sensitive personally identifiable information disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising Coinbase in or around May 2025. On May 15, 2025, Coinbase publicly disclosed the Data Breach involving cybercriminals who recruited and bribed rogue overseas support agents to steal sensitive personal data from Coinbase's internal systems and then demanded a $20 million ransom not to publish the stolen information. Coinbase has not paid the demand and is cooperating with law enforcement in the investigation of the data breach. Coinbase's failures to ensure that its servers and systems were adequately secure fell far short of its obligations and Plaintiff's and Class members' reasonable expectations for data privacy jeopardized the security of Plaintiff's and Class member's personal information, and exposed Plaintiff and Class members to fraud and identity theft or the serious risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' personal information that it collected and maintained. Coinbase is the largest U.S. based cryptocurrency exchange, with over 100 million users and a trading volume of $468 billion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBER COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com COMFORTWEAR COLLECTIONS: Radvansky Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comfortwear Collections International Inc. The case is styled as Ethan Radvansky, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Comfortwear Collections International Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02810-TWT (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. Comfortwear Collections International Inc. -- https://comfortorthowear.com/ -- offers premium ortho comfort shoes.[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 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Mitchell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Casualty Insurance. The case is styled as Bricine Mitchell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Insurance, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25625512 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Continental Casualty Insurance (CNA) -- https://www.cna.com/ -- is the seventh largest commercial insurer in the United States as of 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend "Pang" Suit ------------------------------------------------ Core Scientific, Inc., continues to defend itself against the purported class-action complaint filed by Mei Pang, 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. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff Mei Pang filed a purported class-action complaint against Core Scientific, Inc., its former chief executive officer, Michael Levitt, and others in the United States District Court, Western District (Austin) of Texas asserting that the Company violated the Securities Act and Exchange Act by allegedly failing to disclose to investors that among other things the Company was vulnerable to litigation given its decision to pass power costs to its customers, that certain clients had breached their contracts, and that this impacted the Company's profitability and ability to continue as a going concern. The complaint seeks monetary damages. Core filed a notice of suggestion of bankruptcy stating that its petition for bankruptcy -- filed on December 21, 2022 -- operates as a stay to the continuation of this matter. Plaintiff subsequently withdrew its claims against Core. A lead plaintiff was appointed in April 2023 and proofs of claim were filed in the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. After the Company filed its motion to dismiss and a subsequent motion for consideration with respect to remaining claims not dismissed, all remaining claims in the complaint against the individual defendants were subsequently dismissed without prejudice in April 2024. On December 7, 2023, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, sustained the Company's objection to the filed class proof of claim without prejudice to re-file a proof of claim on an individual basis by December 20, 2023; and denied plaintiff's Motion for Class Treatment under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7023. No individual proof of claim was filed by any of the class representatives of the purported class action by December 20, 2023, and a separately filed objection to confirmation of Debtors' Fourth Amended Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement was overruled by the Bankruptcy Court on January 16, 2024. On January 29, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the order confirming the Company's Plan of Reorganization. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff refiled its complaint asserting that the individual defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly failing to disclose to investors that among other things the Company failed to disclose known trends or uncertainties that would have an impact on the Company's financial performance. The Company's motion to dismiss the refiled complaint is pending with the United States District Court in Austin, Texas. On March 7, 2025, the United States District Court for the Western District (Austin) of Texas referred Plaintiff's complaint to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston for determination of the issues raised by the Company's motion to dismiss, dismissed without prejudice Company's motion to dismiss as moot and administratively closed the case. On March 19, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division dismissed Plaintiff's appeal of the order confirming the Company's Plan of Reorganization as it related to the Plaintiffs as moot in light of the administrative closure of the securities case brought by the Plaintiffs in the United States District Court Western District of Texas. On April 2, 2025, the Plaintiff's filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the orders entered in each of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division and the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin) and the Company filed its motions opposing each of Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration. CORECIVIC INC: ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- CoreCivic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025 that the ICE Detainee labor class suit discovery is ongoing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage laws. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees in California. The Company has exhausted appeals of the class certification order. On May 6, 2024, the district court stayed the filing of dispositive motions on state law claims under California law pending the outcome of a related case being prosecuted by another private prison company. That case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The claims resulting in certified classes are proceeding in all other respects in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where the discovery process has commenced. CoreCivic is a private corrections and detention-management company with whom various governmental entities have contracted to operate correctional facilities. CREDIT ASSOCIATES: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRIC CROWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00349-O (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- extending the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint from April 23, 2025, to May 30, 2025; and -- extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification, such that the Plaintiff's filing deadline will be set by the Court at an initial scheduling conference after the Defendant's responsive pleading has been filed. The requested extension will not affect any other dates set in this case. This is the first extension requested for Defendant to respond to the Complaint and for the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification, and the Parties' request is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. Credit Associates offers professional debt relief and settlement services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pTbxos at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustav Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 The Defendant is represented by: Rick Burton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD A. BURTON, JR., LLC 25 Wood Ln Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 941-3620 CRESCA CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Vargas Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTIZ VARGAS, v. CRESCA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01196-PAD (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Lawsuit is preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on behalf of the following class of Plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit: "All natural persons with a Puerto Rico address, who were sent a letter in the form represented by Exhibit A, on or before a date one year prior to the filing of this action on April 26, 2022, and or before a date 20 days after the filing of this action." On the authority of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court preliminarily certifies the Plaintiff Jose Ortiz Vargas as the Class Representative and the law firm The Batista Law Group as Class Counsel. The Court preliminarily finds that the Lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWZ8lC at no extra charge.[CC] CRISLU CORP: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Edery Herrera, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CRISLU CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-04311 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their 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's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.crislu.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. CRISLU CORP., operates the Crislu online retail store, as well as the Crislu interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Kye Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crunch Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Benjamin Kye, Cameron Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crunch Holdings, LLC, Crunch Franchising, LLC, Crunch, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-04321 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Crunch Holdings, LLC -- https://www.crunch.com/ -- operates as a holding company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elliot Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 610 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com CURO PET LLC: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CURO PET, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alexus Johnson, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CURO PET, LLC, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25625576 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Curo Pet Care -- https://www.curopet.com/ -- is a family-owned veterinary services company founded in 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: 858-551-1223 DEL-ONE FEDERAL: Settlement in Miller Suit Granted Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephanos Bibas of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as JOANNE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DEL-ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; DOES 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01433-SB (D. Del.). Joanne Miller sued Del-One for allegedly violating federal banking regulations and state consumer-fraud laws. She claimed that Del-One charges an overdraft fee even when the customer has enough money in her account. That is because it bases those fees not on how much money is actually in a customer's account but rather the actual amount minus recurring future payments, like a monthly water bill or mortgage payment. She alleged that this policy was hidden from customers. If so, Del-One may have violated federal banking regulations that require clear notice about such policies and state consumer protection law that bars misrepresentations about business services. Del-One moved to dismiss those claims. The parties engaged in discovery for nearly a year and a half, and then they reached a settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The settlement creates two subclasses: (1) the Reg E Fee Subclass (people assessed fees that may have violated Reg E between Oct. 7, 2020 and May 19, 2024) and (2) the DCFA Fee Subclass (people assessed improper fees between Oct. 7, 2018 and May 19, 2024). The Reg E subclass is a subset of the DCFA Fee Subclass, so the customers charged under it are duplicates of the other subclass. The parties were sure not to double-count any fee. These two subclasses are necessary because the legal theories and timeframes differ. Under the proposed settlement, Del-One will pay $1,150,000 to create a fund for class members. One-third of that fund will go to plaintiff's attorneys, and Miller will get $10,000 of it for being the class representative. The settlement broadly releases all claims related to this case. As counsel confirmed at the final-approval hearing, no class member has opted out nor objected. The Court concludes that all the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b) are met. the Court finds accounting for the costs of trial, the method of distributing money to the class, the attorney's fees, and any side agreements, as Rule 23(e)(2)(C) requires, the class is getting a fair deal. The federal-regulatory and state-law issues here are complex enough that the delays, risks, and costs associated with trial would be substantial. The class is getting nearly half of its actual damages, which fairly accounts for these risks. The attorney's fees are also reasonable. In sum, the deal gives the class adequate relief, the Court concludes. Plaintiff asks for $30,002 in costs. The Court will award this amount. Plaintiff has documented these costs, and they are all justified as necessary litigation expenses that helped propel the class's interests forward. Awarding these costs is thus fair. So is the $10,000 award to the class representative, Joanne Miller. If money is left over, it will go to the cy pres recipient, the Special Olympics of Delaware. At the final-approval hearing, all counsel credibly attested that they had no connection to this organization. The Special Olympics is a worthy cause, and even with the possibility of a cy pres award, the settlement is still fair overall. The Court finds this class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Because this settlement satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23, the Court certifies the class and approves the settlement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dxytBo from PacerMonitor.com. Counsel for Plaintiff: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Valerie L. Savran, Esq. Emily J. Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Phone: (909) 757-1812 - and - Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-0338 Fax: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: mfarnan@farnanlaw.com Counsel for Defendants: Krista M. Reale, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-1112 Fax: (302) 888-1119 E-mail: kreale@margolisedelstein.com - and - Jason E. Hunter, Esq. Scott R. Sinson, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 303 West Madison Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 781-6677 Fax: (312) 781-6630 E-mail: Hunter@LitchfieldCavo.com DESMOND FOODS: Del Rio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desmond Foods, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Leslie Del Rio, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Desmond Foods, L.P., Desmond Foods Management, LLC, JEM Restaurant Management Corporation, Peninsula Foods, L.P., Wendy's Operators of Central California, Inc., Wendy's of Santa Clara, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006967 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Desmond Foods LP is a food distribution company based in Fresno, California specializing in providing a wide range of food products to various clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E. Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8010 Email: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com DIAMONDERE INC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Diamondere, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05646 (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://www.diamondere.com (hereinafter "Diamondere.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, Diamondere.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. Diamondere provides to the public a website known as Diamondere.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of handcrafted, high-quality pieces such as rings, wedding bands, custom-designed items, diamond necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and gemstones.[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 DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Ghaemmaghami Due May 1, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vafa Ghaemmaghami, v. Dignity Health, Case No. 2:24-cv-00052-SRB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Bolton entered a case management order as follows: 1. Initial disclosures required by May 23, 2025 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be exchanged no later than: 2. The deadline for completing fact April 10, 2026 discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be: 3. The parties shall provide full and Jan. 16, 2026 complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than: 4. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, March 6, 2026 shall be made no later than: 5. Expert depositions shall be April 10, 2026 completed no later than: 6. Motion for Class Certification May 1, 2026 shall be filed no later than: 7. The Defendant shall file a May 30, 2026 response to the Motion for Class Certification no later than: 8. The Plaintiff shall file a Reply June 27, 2026 no later than: Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that operated hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three states. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PWanqu at no extra charge.[CC] DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Digital Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against the securities class suit pending with the Southern District of Texas, 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. On May 23, 2024, an alleged stockholder, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 2023 and March 2024, filed a putative class action against the Company, certain of our officers and directors, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the Company in its public filings. On July 9, 2024, another alleged stockholder filed a similar securities class action against the Company, certain of our officers and directors, also in the Southern District of Texas. The two actions have been consolidated. Each of these complaints seeks unspecified damages, plus costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. The Company cannot make any predictions about the final outcome of this matter or the timing thereof but believes that plaintiffs' claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. DOUGLAS COLLINS: Preliminary Injunction Bid in Gober Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rudolph Contreras of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the case captioned as JESSICA GOBER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOUGLAS COLLINS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-00714-RC (D.C.). Eight terminated probationary federal employees bring this lawsuit against their former agencies and Charles Ezell, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management. On behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated fired employees, they claim that their terminations violated the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and federal regulations. Among the fired probationary employees are Plaintiffs Jessica Gober, Tiffany Ho, Benza Kendrick-Litho, Sean McClary, Angustia Peck, Levi Preston, Andrea Sassard, and Deven Tines, who worked for the National Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of Commerce; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services; the Government Services Administration; the Veterans Administration; the Department of the Navy; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce; and the National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human Services. The named Plaintiffs were terminated from their jobs in February or March 2025, purportedly on the basis of poor performance. None of the named Plaintiffs' termination letters identified any specific performance deficiency or example of misconduct. Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint on March 11, 2025, naming as Defendants Douglas Collins, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Howard Lutnick, Secretary of the Department of Commerce; and Stephen Ehikian, Acting Director of the Government Services Administration. They then filed an amended complaint adding one additional named Plaintiff, Levi Preston, and one additional defendant, Charles Ezell. Plaintiffs request that the Court certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 a class consisting of: all probationary employees of the Defendant Agencies terminated between January 20, 2025 to the present that received a termination communication stating that termination was due to poor performance, poor conduct, or performance not in the public interest, without any evidence of said poor performance, poor conduct or performance not in the public interest. The operative complaint encompasses four claims. Count I alleges that Defendants, via spokespersons for OPM, the White House, and Congress, made public statements that painted Plaintiffs in a false light, and that defamed their character in violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process. Count II asserts that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional due process rights by terminating them without prior notice of performance deficiencies as required by 5 C.F.R. Secs. 752.401 and 315.803. Count III alleges that Defendants' characterization of Plaintiffs' work performance as poor without a factual basis and removing them without an opportunity to correct their work performances was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq., and that these actions violated applicable regulations. Count IV requests in the alternative that the Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering Defendants to reinstate Plaintiffs to their previous positions and otherwise make them whole. For relief, Plaintiffs ask that the Court order Defendants to publicly admit and acknowledge that Plaintiffs were not terminated due to poor performance, and, for the mandamus count, to correct the public record to reflect that Plaintiffs were not terminated due to poor or deficient performance. They also request, in Count IV, that if no other remedy is available that the Court order Defendants to reinstate them to their previous positions and otherwise make them whole. On March 27, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. They request that the Court issue an order requiring Defendants to clarify that performance had nothing to do with the terminations that took place and to make them whole. Because Plaintiffs have a remedy under Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 available to them -- review by the Office of Special Counsel -- this Court lacks jurisdiction over their claims. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits. But even if the Court were to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, it would likely reject them. The Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have a viable cause of action under the APA for Count III. The Court is also not persuaded that Plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims in Counts I and II. For Count I, they have not pointed to any case where a court found a constitutional due process violation for defamatory speech where defendants were not the speakers. Plaintiffs do not come close to showing entitlement to mandamus, a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary situations where the government owes the plaintiff a clear and compelling duty. Their motion for a preliminary injunction presents no argument why mandamus is appropriate. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Because Plaintiffs have not done so, the Court will deny their motion without evaluating the other preliminary injunction factors. The Court will also reserve Plaintiffs' request to certify the putative class for later proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSar69 from PacerMonitor.com. ELEVADO DRINKS: Smith Files Suit Over Hemp Infused Cocktails ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL SMITH and JASON FERGUSON, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELEVADO DRINKS, LLC, CHACO FLACO DRINKS, LLC, HOP THE WAVE BREWING COMPANY and CHARLES MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00571-CDB (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2025) seeks an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia: (1) cease marketing and selling Elevado Cocktails with deceptive and unlawful claims and ingredients; (2) conduct a corrective advertising campaign; (3) destroy all misleading and deceptive materials and products; (4) award Plaintiffs and the Class members damages, punitive damages, interest, and restitution; and (5) pay costs, expenses, and attorney fees, under the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell a line of Elevado Sparkling Cocktails which contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), psychoactive substances found in the cannabis plant. The Defendants sell Elevado Cocktails in flavors including Strawberry Daiquiri, Prickly Pear Paloma, Berry Mojito, and Mango Margarita. According to the complaint, there is no food additive regulation that authorizes the use of THC or CBD and there is no basis to conclude that THC or CBD are generally recognized as safe for use in conventional foods and beverages. For these reasons, THC and CBD are unsafe and unlawful food additives under the laws. Further, the Defendants deceptively market Elevado Cocktails as "perfectly microdosed" with THC and CBD. However, Elevado Cocktails are not "microdosed." Each Elevado Cocktail is "hemp infused" and contains 5 mg of THC and 5 mg of CBD. Microdosing refers to the practice of consuming minimal quantities of a substance at regular times during the day. This approach is intended to unlock possible healing advantages while avoiding the usual mind-altering or adverse effects linked with that substance. The Plaintiffs purchased Elevado Cocktails during the Class Period for their personal consumption.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory S. Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com EMPIRE MERCHANTS: McGovern Files FCRA Suit in N.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Merchants North, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Erik McGovern, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Empire Merchants North, LLC, Empire Merchants, LLC and any other related entities, Case No. 1:25-cv-00660-AMN-MJK (N.D.N.Y., May 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Empire Merchants -- https://empirenorth.com/ -- is the premier wine and spirits distributor in the metropolitan New York area with roots going back to the end of Prohibition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com ENCORE CAPITAL: Kuzminski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Encore Capital Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Kuzminski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Encore Capital Finance, Inc. doing business as: Adesso Capital, Case No. 0:25-cv-61010-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. Encore Capital Group -- https://www.encorecapital.com/ -- is a global specialty finance company with operations and investments across North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ENJOY THE CITY: Hewett Files TCPA Suit in E.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enjoy the City North, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Hewett, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Enjoy the City North, Inc. d/b/a SaveAround, Case No. 7:25-cv-00973-D-BM (E.D.N.C., May 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Enjoy the City doing business as SaveAround -- https://savearound.com/ -- offers successful fundraisers to hundreds of schools, churches, and other non- profit organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan P. Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY PLLC 1213 W. Morehead St., Suite 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Phone: (704) 741-9399 Email: ryan@ryanpduffy.com ETN AMERICA INC: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ETN America Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. ETN America Inc., Shlomi Cohen, Case No. 3:25-cv-00882-JKM (M.D. Pa., May 20, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ETN America Inc. -- https://etnamerica.com/ -- provides high-quality compliant verified leads and only distribute fresh leads that are verified, TCPA and DNC compliant, and properly qualified.[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 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com FIESTA TABLEWARE: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Fiesta Tableware Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-05728 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 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://fiestafactorydirect.com (hereinafter "Fiestafactorydirect.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, Fiestafactorydirect.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. The Fiesta Tableware provides to the public a website known as Fiestafactorydirect.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of products, including dinner plates, salad plates, mugs, soup bowls, serving platters, condiment bowls, pitchers, and serving trays.[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 FIRST EAGLE FUNDS: Dandini Sues Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Marianna Dandini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST EAGLE FUNDS, FIRST EAGLE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC, FEF DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, MEHDI MAHMUD, LISA ANDERSON, JOHN P. ARNHOLD, CANDACE K. BEINECKE, PETER W. DAVIDSON, JEAN D. HAMILTON, WILLIAM M. KELLY, PAUL J. LAWLER, MANDAKINI PURI, BRANDON WEBSTER and ROBERT BRUNO, Case No. N25C-05-224 PRW CCLD (Del. Super. Ct., May 20, 2025), is brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act"), on behalf of investors in mutual funds offered by First Eagle Funds, and its related defendant entities (collectively, "First Eagle") to recover losses associated with false and misleading statements and material omissions in registration statements and prospectuses related to: Defendants' accounting practices for their handling and treatment of dividend income and capital gains for their mutual funds' investments; Defendants' inflated net asset value ("NAV") calculations for their mutual funds which resulted from their accounting practices; and Defendants' disclosure failures which concealed the resulting material risk from these practices to investors. The Defendants offered shares of the First Eagle Funds to the public on a continuous basis through registration statements and prospectuses that falsely disclosed, or failed to disclose, to investors the known risk and resulting impact of its accounting practices. Each of the registration statements contained the exact same disclosures related to accrued income and gains, which First Eagle knew, based on its own internal accounting practices, was inaccurate. First Eagle's misleading disclosures in the Funds' registration statements and prospectuses about these practices specifically resulted in investors purchasing mutual fund shares at a NAV inflated by its earned but undistributed income—transforming lawful distribution obligations into a hidden tax liability that unsuspecting investors ultimately are required to pay. In relation to the impact of these distributions, Defendants disclosed that "on the ex-dividend date of such a payment, the net asset value of a Fund will be reduced by the amount of the payment." This disclosure falsely states that the impact of distributions occurs only on the "ex-dividend date," when it applies to virtually all purchases made at any time, and fails to disclose the real economic impact on investors of its accounting for accrued income and capital gains. This disclosure, however, is false, misleading, and designed to conceal the true nature of the accrued income and capital gains problem. First Eagle never discloses in full how its accounting practices unnecessarily increase investors' expenses and tax liabilities by artificially inflating share prices, creating a misleading appearance of outperformance relative to the Funds' benchmarks while simultaneously increasing the NAV-based fees that Defendants collect, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased shares of the First Eagle Global Fund on multiple occasions. First Eagle Funds ("FEF") is an open-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: 302-777-0300 Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jemiller@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com - and - Edward H. Glenn, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway Street, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: ehglenn@millershah.com FIRST STUDENT: Effat Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nadia Effat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No. 2025 CH 04419 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05719. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains one count, alleging a putative class action for between one and five purportedly separate alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras. Esq. Michael J. Casas, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mcasas@stephanzouras.com The Defendants are represented by: Darren M. Mungerson, Esq. Angela R. Huisingh, Esq. Jeffrey D. Iles, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: dmungerson@littler.com ahuisingh@littler.com jiles@littler.com FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC. The case is styled as Diana Mey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00113-JPB (N.D.W. Va., May 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Firstsource -- https://www.firstsource.com/ -- is a specialized global business process management partner, and an RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Robey, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC 707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 260 Post Office Box 3983 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (681) 265-3802 Fax: (304) 982-8056 Email: arobey@hfdrlaw.com - and - Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC PO Box 3983 Charleston, WV 25339 Phone: (681) 265-3802 Email: rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com FLEMING & BARNES: Topete Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fleming & Barnes, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Topete, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Fleming & Barnes, Inc., Case No. 25STCV14898 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fleming & Barnes, Inc. doing business as Dimondale Adolescent Care Facility -- https://dacfs.org/ -- provides residential services to abused, neglected, and/or at-risk-youth at nine facilities throughout Los Angeles County.[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 FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Langwell Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Langwell, and Jennifer Tenwick, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU020883C was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on May 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01326-BJC-DEB. The Plaintiffs assert eight causes of action in Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendant: failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Whang, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: dwhang@seyfarth.com - and - Gina Gi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: ggi@seyfarth.com FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Willson FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Timothy Willson, Landon Burress, Pete Doukas, Eugene Troyer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-10511 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01025-JZ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX 4200 Regent Street, Ste. 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak Phone: (248) 542-6300 Fax: (248) 542-6301 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - LOS ANGELES 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com FORWARD AIR: Continues to Defend Shareholders' Suit in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Forward Air 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 it continues to defend itself against the shareholders' lawsuit filed in Tennessee. On September 26, 2023, Rodney Bell, Michael A. Roberts and Theresa Woods (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), three of our shareholders, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its directors and officers in the Third District Chancery Court sitting in Greeneville, Tennessee (the "Shareholder Complaint"). The Shareholder Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's shareholders had the right to vote on certain transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and sought an injunction against the consummation of the transaction until a shareholder vote was held. The court initially granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement but later dissolved it on October 25, 2023. Thereafter, the parties to the Amended Merger Agreement completed the Omni Acquisition. On May 2, 2024, Plaintiff Michael Roberts, together with the Cambria County Employees Retirement System filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking leave of court to file an amended class action complaint seeking damages, among other forms of relief. Upon receiving leave of the court, on May 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). Like the earlier complaints, the Second Amended Complaint challenges the directors' determination not to subject the Omni Acquisition to a shareholder vote and alleges that, in so doing, the Company and certain of its current and former directors violated Tennessee corporate law. The Second Amended Complaint further alleges that certain of the Company's current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by depriving them of the right to vote on the Omni Acquisition. Thereafter, on June 14, 2024, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Third District Chancery Court, and on March 31, 2025, the federal court granted the motion and remanded the case back to the Third District Chancery Court. Defendants contest the merits of the Second Amended Complaint and are in the process of defending the matter. FORWARD SOLUTIONS: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Spencer Martin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FORWARD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02858-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 22, 2025), is brought for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by misclassifying and failing to compensate him and other similarly situated individuals who worked for Forward Solutions and entities it acquired ("Acquired Entities") as salaried salespersons or marketing professionals ("the Sales and Marketing Professionals") for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 per week at the required overtime premium rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Forward Solutions and one of the Acquired Entities as a salesperson. Forward Solutions is an enterprise engaged in commerce and the production of goods for commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John L. Mays, Esq. James D. Dean, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-8000 Email: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com jdean@pcwlawfirm.com GATEWAY PROPERTY: Bland Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BLAND, v. GATEWAY PROPERTY BUYERS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00105-BP (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr. entered an order directing the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification on or before Oct. 14, 2025: -- So that the parties may conduct needed discovery on the class certification issue and the Court may resolve the issue in a timely manner. Gateway is a real estate firm that purchases distressed properties in Memphis, Tennessee, and Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z2i4Bm at no extra charge.[CC] GBT US LLC: Galeas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GBT US, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yesena Galeas, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and aggrieved and the state of the California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency v. GBT US, LLC, AMEX GBT, DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25625605 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." GBT US LLC, doing business as American Express Global Business Travel -- https://www.amexglobalbusinesstravel.com/ -- operates as a travel agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elana Rebecca Levine, Esq. ALDERLAW, PC 12800 Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor Valley Village, CA 91607 Phone: 310-275-9131 Email: llevine@alderlaw.com GENERAL CONFERENCE: Chelder Sues Over Breach of Contract and Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacques Chelder, Williams Petion, Smith Ganthier, Angie Lazard, Jean Mary Jean Misere, Margarette Dominique, Ernst Paul, Phucien Baptiste, Garry Sylvain, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and Investors of Eminifx v. GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION, NORTHEASTERN CONFERENCE, TEXAS CONFERENCE, NORTH AMERICAN DIVISION, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND CONFERENCE, ALLEGHENY EAST CONFERENCE, FLORIDA CONFERENCE, SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE, THEORDORE NORMAN CLAIR WILSON (CEO of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church) FRANTZ D'HAITI, SMITH OLIVIER YVELANDE D'HAITI, JOHN EDVARD MAISONNEUVE, PHILIP MONPREMIER, WILLIAM JEAN CHARLES, AGUY CALERBE, ESTEB PIERRE, MOISE BERTRESSE, JEAN PARISIEN, JOSEPH DORIVAL, JEAN CLAUDE LOUIS JEUNE, FREDO IGNACE, CARL BEHRMAN, PAUL DONALD, SOPHIA MAISONNEUVE, KELNY HYPOLITE, EDDY ALEXANDRE, VIRGO BELIZAIRE, LEE MAYORS MEZIL, WILNICK PRINCIVIL, RACHELLE O. PRINCIVIL, CLARELLE DIEUVEUIL a/k/a MARIE DIEUVEUIL a/k/a CLARELLE ALEXANDRE, and EMILE DUVIVIER, Case No. 1:25-cv-04313 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2025), is brought alleging civil violations of the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act ("Federal RICO"), breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, theft, embezzlement, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, civil violations of the New York Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (New York RICO Act), aiding and abetting fraud, negligent hiring training and supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, exemplary punitive damages, fraudulent conversion, injunctive relief, and for an accounting against the named Defendants. This class action complaint is filed on behalf of over fifteen thousand members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church ("SDA") and investors of Eminifx. Members of the class lost over two hundred million dollars in a massive Ponzi Scheme orchestrated by Seven-day Adventist pastors and other executives of the church between January 2020 and May 2022 (The "Class Period"). Seven Day Adventist pastors with the consent of their regional conferences and the General Conference Corporation of the Seven Day Adventist Church used their churches each Saturday between 2020-2022 to promote the Eminifx Ponzi Scheme. This class action lawsuit arises from a massive Ponzi scheme developed inside the Church, and operated by pastors of the church to defraud the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals. The pastors and religious leaders of the Seventh Day Adventist Church used their positions to lure their parishioners into investing in a Ponzi scheme (the "EminiFX Enterprise Ponzi Scheme"). The pastors made hundreds of millions of dollars, while over 15,000 investors loss over two hundred million dollars. The conspiracy and the fraud were made possible with the express and/or tacit knowledge of the Regional and local Conferences, the North American Division, and the General Conference Corporation. The Defendants acting together, in concert, and on behalf of each other, developed a pyramid scheme where each one of them was responsible for recruiting investors, and for each investor they recruited, they received ten percent (10%) of the money invested as compensation. Each recruited investor was then asked to recruit three other investors. Between January 2020 and May 2022, the Defendants collected over $300,000,000,00 from thousands of investors inside and outside the church, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are lifelong members of the Adventist church. GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION hereinafter ("GCC") is the governing entity of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church with its principal address in the State of Marylan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Wil Morris, Esq. 2800 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 530 Miami, FL 33137 Phone: 305-444-3437 Fax: 305-444-3457 GENERAL DYNAMICS: 4th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of D'Armiento Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled as SUSAN SCHARPF; ANTHONY D'ARMIENTO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.; BATH IRON WORKS CORP.; ELECTRIC BOAT CORP.; GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.; HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, INC.; NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK CO.; INGALLS SHIPBULIDING, INC.; HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.; HII FLEET SUPPORT GROUP LLC; MARINETTE MARINE CORPORATION; BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS, LLC; GIBBS & COX, INC.; SERCO, INC.; CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC.; THE COLUMBIA GROUP, INC.; THOR SOLUTIONS, LLC; TRIDENTIS, LLC; FASTSTREAM RECRUITMENT LTD., Defendants - Appellees, No. 24-1465 (4th Cir.), Judges James Andrew Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Anthony D'Armiento and Susan Scharpf's putative class action by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs Anthony D'Armiento and Susan Scharpf brought a putative class action against the nation's largest shipbuilders and naval-engineering consultancies, alleging a wide-ranging "no-poach" conspiracy in which the companies formed a "gentlemen's agreement" not to recruit each other's employees in an effort to drive down wages. As no named Plaintiff has worked for any Defendant since 2013, the district court dismissed the case as barred by the Sherman Act's four-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that a "non-ink-to-paper" agreement cannot constitute an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment, so it does not toll the limitations period. In this case, as Plaintiffs do not allege that they did much of anything during the statutory period, their claim turns on whether they were on inquiry notice. The pleadings indicate that Plaintiffs did not believe they had been harmed until they learned of the no-poach conspiracy through interviews with industry insiders in April 2023. Plaintiffs never allege that they were aware of the no-poach conspiracy before that investigation -- on the contrary, they state that they did not and could not have uncovered Defendants' conspiracy with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Plaintiffs at all times believed that they were being compensated at competitive levels and were unaware of the agreement to pay sub-competitive wages. According to the Circuit Judges, based on the complaint alone, they cannot say that the named Plaintiffs should have known about the conspiracy because they were never recruited by another company. The Plaintiffs may have thought that fact reflected deficiencies in their own employability, or the vagaries of chance, rather than an indication of a widespread conspiracy. They conclude that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged fraudulent concealment. Accordingly, they reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nka4XO HARMONY LEADS: Wins Bid to Bifurcate TCPA Suit Discovery Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Prose of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Harmony Leads, Inc.'s motion to bifurcate the discovery schedule in the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RAGSDALE and CARL YOCKMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARMONY LEADS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02510-CNS-SBP (D. Colo.). Plaintiffs Lisa Ragsdale and Carl Yockman, who bring claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are opposed. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq. Generally, Plaintiffs allege that they were sent text messages without their consent. In addition to their individual claims, Plaintiffs also bring this case as a purported class action on behalf of all others similarly situated. Harmony contends that Plaintiffs cannot properly represent a class because there are unique legal and factual issues related to their individual claims. Based on these issues, Harmony asks the Court to enter a scheduling order setting a bifurcated discovery schedule with initial discovery to be conducted on Plaintiffs' individual claims, with class discovery to follow after the court determines whether the individual claims should proceed. Because there are discrete, narrow issues which may dispose of Plaintiffs' individual claims, the Court concludes that the most expeditious course is to limit discovery to those individual claims before authorizing discovery on the putative class claims. Doing so will save the resources of the parties and the Court in the event that Plaintiffs' individual claims are dismissed. Additionally, the Court finds that setting an aggressive schedule on the individual claims will serve to promote Rule 23's goal that class certification be decided at an early practicable time and minimize the prejudice caused by delaying class discovery. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ft0au2 from PacerMonitor.com. HEAR.COM LLC: Oblak Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Oblak, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEAR.COM, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-22323-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2025), is brought against Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay proper compensation. During her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was paid an hourly wage plus non-discretionary commissions and bonuses based on her performance. The Plaintiff and the other CSRs were scheduled to work 40 or more hours per week. The Plaintiff and the other CSRs were paid an hourly wage plus commission and bonus pay during their employment. The commission and bonus payments were non-discretionary and based on the employees' sales performance. During the relevant time period, Defendant failed to include the non-discretionary commission and bonus payments in Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a CSR from December 2, 2019, through July 1, 2024. HEAR.COM is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324-4241 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com HERSHEY COMPANY: Noohi Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Narguess Noohi, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Case No. 25STCV11697 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 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04723. The Plaintiff alleges she and a putative class are entitled to relief in connection with Hershey's sale and marketing of Pirate's Booty Aged White Cheddar Puffs, Pirate's Booty Cheddar Blast Puffs, and Pirate's Booty Smart Puffs (referred to by Plaintiff as the "Product" or "Products"). The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, statutory penalties, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and other relief from Hershey, asserting the following causes of action: violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL") and (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Phone: +1 312-558-5600 Email: RRothste@winston.com - and - Jared R. Kessler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: +1 305-910-0500 Email: JRKessler@winston.com - and - Shawn Obi, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213-615-1763 Email: sobi@winston.com HUMANSCALE CORP: Pittman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Humanscale Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05379 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) is a civil rights action against Humanscale for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.humanscale.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: inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, changing of content without advance warning, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Humanscale.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Humanscale'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. Humanscale Corporation operates the website that offers ergonomic office products, including chairs and stools, monitor arms, sit or stand solutions, lighting, keyboard systems, cable management, and separation panels.[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 INDIVIOR INC: Acosta Files Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eva Acosta, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. f/k/a MonoSol RX, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65862-JPC (N.D. Ohio, May 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Kimball, Esq. SEIGEL LAW - RIDGEWOOD 505 Goffle Road Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Phone: (201) 444-4000 Fax: (201) 444-7717 Email: jkimball@seigellaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Denise A. Dickerson, Esq. SUTTER O'CONNELL - CLEVELAND 3600 Erieview Tower 1301 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 928-2200 Fax: (216) 928-4400 Email: ddickerson@sutter-law.com - and- Mary Renee Pawelek, Esq. Randall L. Christian, Esq. BOWMAN BROOKE LLP 2901 Via Fortuna Drive, Suite 500 Austin, TX 78746 Phone: (512) 874-3800 Fax: (512) 874-3801 Email: mary.pawelek@bowmanandbrooke.com Randall.Christian@bowmanandbrooke.com INDIVIOR INC: Amatucci Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Amatucci, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., F/K/A MonoSol Rx, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65863-JPC (N.D. Ohio, May 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wieczorkiewicz, Esq. WALLACE MILLER - CHICAGO 150 North Wacker, Ste. 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 261-6193 Email: jw@wallacemiller.com INDIVIOR INC: Augusta Files Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indivior Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicole Augusta, and others similarly situated v. Indivior Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., F/K/A MonoSol Rx, LLC, Case No. 1:25-sf-65863-JPC (N.D. Ohio, May 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Indivior -- https://www.indivior.com/ -- is a specialty pharmaceuticals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Kimball, Esq. SEIGEL LAW - RIDGEWOOD 505 Goffle Road Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Phone: (201) 444-4000 Fax: (201) 444-7717 Email: jkimball@seigellaw.com INTEL CORPORATION: Schiassi Suit Transferred to D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alessandro Schiassi, Justin Desevrenjacquet, Cajer Jong, John Reyes, Bienvenido Virata, Dung Anh Duong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intel Corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-02043 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on May 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00633-UNA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Contract Product Liability. Intel Corporation -- https://www.intel.com/ -- is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and incorporated in Delaware.[BN] JARED HOY: Court Allows Fifth Amendment Takings Claim to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the plaintiff leave to proceed, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated inmates, on a Fifth Amendment takings claim in the case captioned as ROBERT HUBER, Plaintiff, v. JARED HOY AND GARY BOUGHTON, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00404-wmc (W.D. Wis.). Through his counsel, plaintiff Robert Huber, who is incarcerated at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated inmates against Wisconsin Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy and WSPF Warden Gary Boughton, both in their official capacities, claiming deprivation to his previously-purchased electronic devices and digital media files under a 2023 DOC policy, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wisconsin conversion law. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking a person's private property for public use without just compensation. In 2019, the DOC began selling electronic "SCORE" tablets supplied by Advanced Technology Group to prisoners, which provide a secure method to listen to music and purchase digital content. In reliance on this DOC's apparent endorsement, plaintiff purchased an ATG tablet for $139.95 in 2019, and spent an additional $1,000 on digital content and tablet accessories. Plaintiff and other DOC inmates also used kiosks in the prison to transfer their downloaded digital media files from their cloud-based libraries to their ATG tablets. In 2023, DOC decided to expand this program further by giving a tablet to every DOC inmate in the state, albeit through a different, single vendor called Inmate Calling Solutions, with the stated purpose of allowing inmates to easily make phone calls, request medical and other assistance, and access information from the law library. Plaintiff claims that DOC's adoption of a new multimedia tablet program through ICS violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state conversion law. He seeks to represent two classes of DOC prisoners in obtaining declaratory and injunctive relief: (1) those whose digital media files and other purchased content were taken or will be taken pursuant to the Multimedia Tablet Program; and (2) those who previously purchased ATG tablets. Under the new DOC policy, inmates like plaintiff, who had participated in the ATG tablet program, are required to surrender their ATG tablets to DOC and will lose all access to their previously-purchased, digital music and books, regardless of whether they chose to participate in the new multimedia tablet program. DOC has offered no compensation to inmates for taking away access to their ATG tablets and digital files, and it has denied inmate grievances and appeals concerning the confiscation of this property. The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations that DOC issued and enforced a policy restricting his and other inmates' private use of their previously-purchased ATG tablets and digital media are sufficient at this early stage to state a regulatory taking claim under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff's substantive due process claim will be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to pursue available state law remedies, and the state law conversion claim will be dismissed with prejudice as barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cFE1AY from PacerMonitor.com. JESUS GUADARRAMA: Harnage Suit Plaintiff Can't Assert Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sarah F. Russell of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a ruling on the lawsuit captioned JAMES A. HARNAGE, MARCELINO B. LASALLE, JAMES DAVENPORT, Plaintiffs, v. JESUS GUADARRAMA, DANIEL DAUGHERTY, DEPUTY WARDEN MANGIAFICO, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR RODRIGUEZ, REV. DR. SANTIAGO, ASSOCIATE CHAPLAIN USMAN, COMMISSARY OPERATOR DICKEY, COMMISSARY SUPERVISOR DOE 1, and COMMISSARY PURCHASING DIRECTOR DOE 2, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-1858 (D. Conn.). Plaintiffs James Harnage, Marcelino LaSalle, and James Davenport are individuals in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction (and incarcerated at the MacDougall Correctional Institution. They have filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 asserting equal protection and religious rights violations under the United States Constitution, federal statutory law, and the Connecticut Constitution. They sue the following four Connecticut DOC employees who work at MacDougall: Wardens Jesus Guadarrama and Daniel Daugherty, Deputy Warden Mangiafico, and Commissary Operator Dickey. They also sue five other DOC prison officials: District Administrator Rodriguez, Director of Religious Services Reverend Dr. Santiago, Associate Chaplain Usman, Commissary Supervisor Doe 1, and Commissary Purchasing Supervisor Doe 2. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts review complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. Plaintiffs are men who practice, and are registered as adherents to, the Jewish faith. They are housed at MacDougall, a male correctional facility. All nine Defendants are allegedly involved in making products available to the inmate population. Plaintiffs have all purchased items at the commissary. As men in the custody of the DOC, they are subject to restrictions on their commissary purchases of scented soap, shampoos, vent or styling hair brushes, shower caps, foam rollers, hair dryers, body wash, and hair removal products. Plaintiffs allege that the restrictions are unreasonable and based solely on consideration of their gender as men. Plaintiffs complain that they are restricted from purchasing Nair Hair Remover Cream. Pursuant to the commissary list, male inmates are limited to purchasing Magic Shave, which is a hair removal product that is harsher on the skin than Nair. Many incarcerated individuals with lighter skin tones have reported severe skin irritation resulting from their use of Magic Shave. Nonetheless, Defendants refuse without any legitimate or reasonable penological reason to permit Plaintiffs to purchase the same hair removal product that is available to female inmates. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that the commissary restrictions violate Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-1. Plaintiffs allege that they are members of a "class of inmates" and appear to assert claims on behalf of class members. According to the Court, as pro se litigants, Plaintiffs may not bring a class action lawsuit because non-attorneys may not represent anyone other than themselves. The Court enter the following orders: (1) Plaintiffs may proceed with their Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation claims against Warden Jesus Guadarrama, Warden Daniel Daugherty, Deputy Warden Mangiafico, Commissary Operator Dickey, District Administrator Rodriguez, Director of Religious Services Dr. Santiago, Associate Chaplain Usman, Commissary Supervisor Doe 1, and Commissary Purchasing Supervisor Doe 2 in their individual and official capacities. (2) Plaintiffs may proceed with their First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claims against Warden Jesus Guadarrama, Warden Daniel Daugherty, Deputy Warden Mangiafico, Commissary Operator Dickey, District Administrator Rodriguez, Director of Religious Services Dr. Santiago, Associate Chaplain Usman, Commissary Supervisor Doe 1, and Commissary Purchasing Supervisor Doe 2 in their individual capacities and official capacities. (3) Plaintiffs may proceed with their RLUIPA claims against Warden Guadarrama, Warden Daugherty, Deputy Warden Mangiafico, Commissary Operator Dickey, District Administrator Rodriguez, Director of Religious Services Dr. Santiago, Associate Chaplain Usman, Commissary Supervisor Doe 1, and Commissary Purchasing Supervisor Doe 2 in their official capacities. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qMAiFA JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Tosses Milan, et al. Bills Pay Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judges Otis D. Wright II of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as KEIR MILAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06323-ODW-MAR (C.D. Cal.) with leave to amend to add factual allegations to cure deficiencies. Plaintiffs Keir Milan and Keirco, Inc. bring this putative class action for consumer protection violations and breach of contract against Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Chase now moves to dismiss Milan and Keirco's FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On May 25, 2024, Chase acquired customer personal and business banking accounts from First Republic Bank. This included Milan's and Keirco's accounts. FRB and Chase each offer their own separate Bill Pay Services that allow their customers to set up future payments to be automatically deducted and sent from their accounts to designated payees. FRB customers reasonably expected that Chase's Bill Pay Service functioned similarly to FRB's Bill Pay Service when, in fact, the two services functioned materially differently. According to Milan and Keirco, Chase concealed that funds are withdrawn from customer accounts prior to the transfer date set by the customer. By withdrawing funds earlier than the date the customer expects, Chase caused customer accounts to be underfunded and negatively impacted customers' financial standing. Chase's Digital Service Agreement governs the Bill Pay Service. Nowhere in the DSA does Chase alert account holders that Chase will withdraw funds earlier than the customer's designated date (i.e., the date a customer designates a payee to receive payment. Based on these allegations, Milan initiated this class action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, and Keirco initiated this class action on behalf of itself and all other corporations similarly situated. The proposed class includes all Chase clients enrolled in the Bill Pay Service, with a subclass consisting of Chase clients enrolled in the service while residing in California. On behalf of themselves and the class, Plaintiffs assert four causes of action: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code section 1770, et seq.; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; and (4) breach of contract. Chase moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' CLRA, FAL, and UCL causes of action for failing to allege fraudulent conduct under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. It also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action for failing to allege a breach of the DSA. Rule 9(b) applies to claims for violations of the CLRA that are grounded in fraud. A claim concerning allegations of nondisclosure as false representation under California law sounds in fraud and is subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. In their first cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Chase committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices to induce account holders like themselves to use the Bill Pay Service. As Plaintiffs fail to plead with the necessary specificity to state a cause of action based on a nondisclosure, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' CLRA cause of action. In their second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege Chase violated the FAL by disseminating untrue and misleading statements about Chase's Bill Pay Service. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' FAL allegations fail to state with any particularity the circumstances surrounding the representations made to them by Chase. As Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the heightened standard of Rule 9(b), the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' FAL cause of action. The allegations supporting Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of the UCL's fraudulent prong are based on the same false representations as Plaintiffs' FAL cause of action. Plaintiffs also allege that Chase's fraudulently misrepresented that, "should a bill be set to be paid at a future date, finances would not be taken from an account until that future date occurred" and that Chase failed to warn account holders that it would withdraw funds prior to the future set date. This cause of action suffers from the same deficiencies as the FAL cause of action -- failing to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements, the Court finds. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' UCL claims based on the fraudulent prong. Plaintiffs argue that even if their UCL claim based on Chase's fraudulent conduct is dismissed, their UCL claim under the unlawful prong is still a separate basis for liability and should survive. Plaintiffs' UCL unfair prong allegations are identical to those asserted under the fraud and unlawful prongs. As the Court has already dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the fraudulent and unlawful prongs, the unfair prong claim also fails. In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that Chase breached specific terms of the DSA by withdrawing funds prematurely. Chase moves to dismiss this cause of action, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific terms that Chase breached. Unlike the fraud-based causes of action, Plaintiffs' allegations for a breach of contract need only satisfy the standard pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). According to the Court, Plaintiffs fail to point to any specific terms that created Chase's contractual obligation, and which Chase allegedly breached. As Plaintiffs fail to specifically allege Chase breached a term of DSA, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XnxnsA from PacerMonitor.com. JUMP TRADING: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kim, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Georgia N. Alexakis of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as TAEWOO KIM, KASHYAP PATEL, KERRY WOOLLEY, and KEN WORSHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUMP TRADING, LLC, JUMP CRYPTO HOLDINGS, LLC (f/k/a 1HOLD1 LLC), KANAV KARIYA, and WILLIAM DISOMMA, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02921 (N.D. Ill.). In 2018, Do Kwon and his company TFL began creating the Terra blockchain. The next year, TFL began to sell UST and its related digital asset, LUNA. LUNA was the native token of the Terra blockchain. by contrast, was designed as a "stablecoin," a type of digital asset intended to be more stable than other cryptocurrencies by pegging its value to another asset. UST was continuously pegged to the U.S. dollar, which, according to plaintiffs, was meant to appeal to the public as a safe crypto asset to serve as a store of value and medium of exchange. Jump Crypto was one of TFL's early partners. From November 2019 to September 2020, it entered into a series of agreements with TFL to borrow tens of millions of LUNA tokens and provide "market-making" services to TFL in exchange for the opportunity to buy discounted LUNA tokens. In May 2021, TFL's algorithm pegging UST to $1 failed, and UST's market price fell. Plaintiffs Taewoo Kim, Kashyap Patel, Kerry Woolley, and Ken Worsham bring this suit individually and on behalf of a putative class against Jump Trading, LLC, its cryptocurrency arm Jump Crypto Holdings, LLC, and two of Jump Crypto's executives, alleging violations the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 180, and common law unjust enrichment. They allege that defendants violated state and federal law by scheming with Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. to manipulate the price of a stablecoin called TerraUSD. Plaintiffs contend defendants actively concealed and aided and abetted TFL's and Kwon's concealment of Jump's May 2021 intervention to maintain the artificial $1 peg for UST. By May 2022, the price of UST collapsed entirely, causing an alleged loss of nearly $19 billion in UST holdings, including a loss of more than $2 million in UST for the four named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs maintain that, as a whole, the class sustained billions of dollars in actual damages under applicable law. Defendants now move to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement plaintiffs signed with TFL. The operative agreement to which defendants point appears in the terms of service for the "Anchor Protocol," which is a feature of the Terraform blockchain. Although defendants were not a party to the Anchor Protocol's terms of service, they nonetheless contend that equitable estoppel principles require plaintiffs to submit this dispute to arbitration. Defendants' motion to compel presents three issues: (1) whether the Court or the arbitrator should determine if plaintiffs' claims are arbitrable given defendants' status as non-signatories to the Anchor Protocol's terms of service; (2) assuming that predicate determination is one for the Court, whether it should apply equitable estoppel principles from state law or federal common law to determine whether nonsignatory defendants can compel arbitration against plaintiffs; and (3) again assuming that the Court should decide the predicate question, whether defendants actually may compel arbitration under equitable estoppel principles. The default rule in Illinois is that a nonsignatory typically has no right to invoke an arbitration provision contained in that contract. But there are recognized exceptions to that general rule. For example, a nonsignatory might invoke an arbitration provision under a third-party beneficiary, agency, or equitable estoppel theory. Defendants do not attempt to show that any state's equitable estoppel principles would enable it to compel arbitration as a non-signatory, let alone Illinois'. Instead, they argue that federal common law principles warrant compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate. Their failure to analyze the issue under state law is fatal to their motion to compel because the party claiming equitable estoppel has the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence, the Court finds. Because defendants have not established their right to compel arbitration as non-signatories, this dispute belongs in federal court, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8E1SH from PacerMonitor.com. KELLY ASSOCIATES: Emery Files Suit in D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mark Emery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kelly & Associates Insurance Group, Inc. doing business as: Kelly Benefits, Amergis Healthcare Staffing, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01644-SAG (D. Md., May 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Kelly & Associates -- https://kellybenefits.com/ -- is an employee benefits consulting firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyril Vincent Smith, III, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 E Pratt St Ste 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 332-0444 Fax: (410) 659-0436 Email: csmith@zuckerman.com KERRY INC: Washington Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tyrone Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KERRY INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-11462-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00965. The Complaint and set forth the following nine causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; Willful Refusal to Pay Wages; and Failure to Pay All Compensation Owed all in Violation of RCW.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Petitta, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone (818) 230-7502 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (206) 902-3802 Email: Brian.Keeley@jacksonlewis.com - and - Peter V. Montine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone (206) 626-6414 Email: Peter.Montine@jacksonlewis.com KIMLEY-HORN: Dismissal of Antezana, et al. Suit Affirmed in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled as ENRIQUE R. ANTEZANA, ANDRES CALERO, MICHAEL J. CHARLOT, LIDIETTE ESQUIVEL, AMELIA Z. MIGUELEZ, MARTHA PLANEY VALDEZ, and AMIR RICARDO VAZQUEZ, in their individual capacities and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Appellants, v. KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC. and CITY OF MIRAMAR, Appellees, No. 4D2024-0486 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), Judges Mark W. Klingensmith, Martha C. Warner and Alan O. Forst of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County dismissing with prejudice their amended class action complaint against KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. and the City of Miramar. Plaintiffs represent a class of over 1,000 homeowners with properties located in a defined area within the City that receives water from the City's West Water Treatment Plant. They brought an action alleging that the water which the City had delivered to them from the water plant between 2016 to 2022 was improperly treated and had caused irreversible damage to all the copper pipes in the area. The City contracted with KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. for professional planning and design engineering consulting services. The City did not make its water non-corrosive after receiving Consultant's report, analysis, and recommendations. After residents complained to the City about premature plumbing failures, the City again contracted with Consultant to evaluate its finished water to provide residents with answers. In an apparent attempt to shield itself from liability for previous inadequate advice to the City, Consultant claimed that the finished water was not contributing to any accelerated corrosion but that potential non-water related causes contributed. Plaintiffs alleged they could not have reasonably known that the City was providing them with corrosive water. The City represented to residents that it was not possible for the finished water to have caused damage to their pipes. The City advised residents to replace their pipes at their own expense and offered a program for residents to borrow up to $10,000 from the City to pay for the new pipes. Plaintiffs brought six tort claims: three claims against the City -- negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and strict liability, and three claims against Consultant -- professional malpractice, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs argue dismissal was in error because the City owed them a duty to treat the water so that it would be non-corrosive, and Consultant owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care in analyzing the water and advising the City. The City relies heavily on Brynnwood Condominium I Ass'n v. City of Clearwater, 474 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), for the proposition that it does not have a duty to treat water to prevent the corrosion of a property owner's pipes. The Judges reverse the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' negligence claim against the City because Plaintiffs alleged sufficient ultimate facts of entitlement to relief under the theory that the City undertook a duty to treat its water to render it non-corrosive. They affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty and strict liability claims against the City because Plaintiffs have not distinguished those claims from those in Brynnwood. Further, the Judges reverse the trial court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' professional malpractice and negligence claims against Consultant because Plaintiffs alleged sufficient ultimate facts of entitlement to relief. They affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim against Consultant because Plaintiffs insufficiently alleged justifiable reliance on material misrepresentations. They do not express any opinion on whether Plaintiffs are likely to prevail at further stages of this litigation. Accordingly, the Judges affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's orders dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and remand for further proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H0gs5m KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Labor Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------ Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that a putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, "Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc." was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. It was on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court. The case has been removed to United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief. On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The appeal was argued before the Ninth Circuit on November 13, 2023, and on January 8, 2024, the Court issued its opinion affirming the District Court in part and reversing in part. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of certification as to the subclasses related to the security bag check and reversed as to the rest break claim. The Ninth Circuit did not find that there is liability nor that the rest break claim is certified. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on the surviving rest break claim last June 7, 2024. Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and furnishings in the United States operating 329 stores in 35 states as of May 4, 2024, as well as an e-commerce website, www.kirklands.com, under the Kirkland's Home brand. KLOVER HOLDINGS: Moss Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Terrance Moss, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLOVER HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2025CH04354 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05758. On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, filed the State Court Action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division against Klover. In the State Court Action, Plaintiff has alleged the following claims for relief: Violations of the Military Lending Act (the "MLA"), and Violations of the Truth in Lending Act (the "TILA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Margaret DePoy, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 499-6000 Facsimile: (312) 499-6100 Email: maggiedepoy@paulhastings.com - and - Allyson Baker, Esq. Meredith Boylan, Esq. Sameer Sheikh, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 551-1700 Facsimile: (202) 551-0331 Email: allysonbaker@paulhastings.com meredithboylan@paulhastings.com sameersheikh@paulhastings.com KURDISTAN GOV't: Court Tosses Kurdistan Victims Fund, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Randolph D. Moss of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint in the case captioned as KURDISTAN VICTIMS FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00278-RDM (D.C.) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs Kurdistan Victims Fund, Maki Revend, Shakhwan Abdulrahman (individually and on behalf of the estate of Jihan Taha Abdulrahman), and "John Does 1-5000," bring this action against dozens of individual defendants, many of whom are foreign officials of the Kurdistan Regional Government, a semi-autonomous political subdivision of Iraq. The defendants include, for example, the Kurdistan Regional Government's sitting Prime Minister, Masrour Barzani, as well as its current official Representative to the United States and former President. Plaintiffs filed this action over a year ago. Their original complaint alleged a broad conspiracy and campaign of violence perpetrated by the Kurdistan Regional Government and its officers. Plaintiffs sought "Nine Billion Dollars" in damages. They generally alleged that Defendants are associated with "a coldly-efficient transnational criminal organization" called "the Barzani Continuing Criminal Enterprise," which is rooted in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on Jan. 9, 2024. The Court's review of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint revealed that Plaintiffs had failed to take to heart its prior direction that their second amended complaint needed to include specific factual allegations tying specific defendants to specific wrongs committed against specific plaintiffs. The Court, accordingly, ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6) or for failure to identify the 5000 John Doe plaintiffs, and it also allowed those Defendants who had been served to file a statement addressing these (or any other) problems with Plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court finds Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies in their original and first amended complaints. Plaintiffs have now filed three complaints over the course of sixteen months, none of which have complied with Rule 8. The most recent complaint is nearly devoid of allegations relating to any specific Defendant's specific conduct, and to the extent the complaint contains any such allegations, they are buried within hundreds of pages of irrelevant material and are, in any event, too conclusory to satisfy Rules 8 and 12(b)(6). Not only does the operative complaint fail to comply with Rules 8 and 12(b)(6), but Plaintiffs proposal as to the "1-5000" John Doe Plaintiffs is untenable, the Court notes. According to the Court, Plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts indicating that their damages claims can be adjudicated absent the participation of individual members. They seek $9 billion in compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, but such claims turn on individualized assessments of harm. Because the relief Plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded without individualized proof, Kurdistan Victims Fund lacks associational standing, the Court finds. In light of Plaintiffs' repeated failures to file a complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and their repeated failure to comply with the Court's directions, the Court concludes that the second complaint should be dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWToze from PacerMonitor.com. LABRASCA PLASTIC: Smith Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Labrasca Plastic Surgery LLC. The case is styled as Cody Smith, and others similarly situated v. Labrasca Plastic Surgery LLC, Case No. 2025-0677-CD (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Clearfield Cty., May 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Tort. LaBrasca -- https://drlabrasca.com/ -- is a board-certified plastic surgeon specializing in cosmetic and reconstructive surgery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq. Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (305) 529-8858 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Court Defers Resolution of Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida defers resolution of Defendant Lakeview Health Systems' motion to dismiss pending the resolution of its sua sponte inquiry into the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in the following class action lawsuits: 1. BROCK SKOV, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-732-MMH-LLL; 2. KEVIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-826-MMH-MCR; and 3. JEFFREY W. HURLEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-961-MMH-MCR In due course, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint, which they did on Oct. 31, 2024. In the Consolidated Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Lakeview was the target of a data breach, which potentially exposed Plaintiffs' sensitive information to unauthorized third parties. They bring claims against Lakeview for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. They seek various forms of relief, including an injunction against Lakeview's alleged wrongful conduct and requiring Lakeview to provide certain disclosures, an injunction requiring Lakeview to take certain remedial steps to protect Plaintiffs' data, and damages including actual, consequential, and nominal damages. On Dec. 19, 2024, Lakeview filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). Upon review of the Consolidated Complaint, the Court is unable to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it is not clear that any named Plaintiff has standing. Accordingly, the Court will defer resolution of the Motion and order Lakeview to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court. Anticipating that Lakeview could conceivably choose instead to accede to a remand, the Court will also give Plaintiffs an opportunity to be heard on the issue of their standing. Plaintiffs must file a joint memorandum addressing this Court's subject matter jurisdiction on or before June 6, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zhE91h from PacerMonitor.com. LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Narrows Claims in Doe-1, et al. FCRA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Harvey Bartle III of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will grant in part and deny in part the motion of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE-1, et al. v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Case No. 24-cv-04566 (D.N.J.). Plaintiffs John Doe and Jane Doe, as set forth in their second amended complaint, bring this putative class action against defendant LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. and a number of presently unknown persons and entities for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq. Plaintiffs first claim that they were harmed when LexisNexis without their permission imposed a credit freeze on their accounts instead of adhering to their request simply to delete their home addresses and unlisted phone numbers as allowed under a New Jersey statute known as Daniel's Law. In the alternative, they plead that even if LexisNexis properly imposed a credit freeze it violated various provisions of the FCRA to their detriment. They seek actual and punitive damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorney's fees. Before the Court is the motion of LexisNexis to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of standing and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs first allege that LexisNexis failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c-1(i)(2)(A) by imposing security freezes on their credit files without their direct request. The Court finds Plaintiffs clearly allege facts that they have suffered tangible, concrete, and particularized monetary and physical harms because of LexisNexis's wrongfully imposed freeze on their credit reports. Both plaintiffs have clearly alleged facts demonstrating standing for their claims under Sec. 1681c-1(i)(2)(A) for damages for the improper placement of security freezes on their credit files, the Court concludes. Plaintiffs' claims under Sec. 1681c-1(i)(2)(B)(i), Sec. 1681m(d)(1)(D), and Sec. 1681g are based on the alternative theory that the credit freeze was properly placed but that LexisNexis did not timely provide them with certain information required when a freeze has been properly placed. In this case, plaintiffs have simply not alleged any facts that they have suffered any monetary, physical or emotional harm as a result of these violations. They rely primarily on informational harm to confer standing. Plaintiffs do not state what material information was omitted so as to cause them harm. As noted, omitted information is a necessary ingredient for informational standing. The Court finds Plaintiffs have not pleaded what is required for informational standing for claims under Sec. 1681c-1(i)(2)(B)(i), Sec. 1681m(d)(1)(D), and Sec. 1681g. Finally, plaintiffs assert a claim under Sec. 1681c-1(i)(4). Under this provision, a consumer reporting agency is still required to supply a credit report for certain uses notwithstanding the placement of a security freeze by the consumer. Plaintiffs maintain that LexisNexis wrongfully relied on the freeze when it should have supplied their credit reports to third parties. In paragraph 30 of the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the actions of LexisNexis, they have been unable to obtain or extend insurance services. Accordingly, they have properly pleaded standing for their claim under Sec. 1681c-1(i)(4)(H). Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiffs have standing and state viable claims under Sec. 1681c-(i)(2)(A) and Sec. 1681c-1(i)(4)(H) of the FCRA. To this extent the motions of LexisNexis under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) will be denied. The motion of LexisNexis under Rule 12(b)(1) will otherwise be granted. Plaintiffs' allegations that LexisNexis violated Sec. 1681c-1(i)(2)(B)(i), Sec. 1681m(d)(1)(D), and Sec. 1681g of the FCRA will be dismissed for lack of standing. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y1MIvm from PacerMonitor.com. LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada ----------------------------------------------------------------- Live Ventures Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sieggreen class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated claimants (the "Plaintiff"), filed a class action Complaint for violation of federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company, Jon Isaac, the Company's current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Virland Johnson, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (collectively, the "Company Defendants"). The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint. Among other sought relief, the complaint seeks damages in connection with the purchases and sales of the Company's securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay proceedings pending the resolutions of the Motions to Dismiss in the SEC Complaint. On February 1, 2023, the final Motion to Dismiss relating to the SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 6, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the Company Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Motion to Dismiss was heard and granted with Leave to Amend on September 30, 2024. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 31, 2024. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 16, 2024 and the briefing is complete. The Company don't know when the motion will be heard. Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies. LIVE VENTURES: Sanchez Labor Class Suit Mediation Set for June 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Live Ventures Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda has scheduled the Sanchez labor class mediation in June 2025. On July 27, 2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee of Elite Builder Services, Inc. ("Elite Builders"), filed a class action Complaint against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, which case was transferred to Stanislaus Count. The Complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all wages due upon separation as required by California law. The Complaint was later amended as a matter of right on October 4, 2022. Further, Ms. Sanchez has put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on notice to exhaust administrative remedies and enable her to bring an additional claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties. The parties agreed to mediation on October 30, 2024 in an effort to minimize litigation costs and seek an early reasonable resolution. However, the mediation was postponed and is now set for June 2025. Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies. LIVEPERSON INC: Appeal on Damri Stockholder Suit Dismissal Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ LivePerson Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025 that the Damri stockholder class suit dismissal appeal is pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In December 2023, a putative stockholder class action entitled Damri v. LivePerson, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-10517, was filed under the federal securities laws against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-Q filings and forecasts for the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year 2022 were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the Company's later disclosures and report on Form 10-K on March 16, 2023. On May 31, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2024. On March 19, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal remains pending. LivePerson is a technology company that "delivers mobile and online messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial Intelligence." LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Luminar Technologies 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 Johnson class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On May 26, 2023, a putative class action styled Johnson v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against the Company and an employee. The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company’s photonic integrated circuits technology. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 29, 2023, the motion was granted, and on July 8, 2024 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 22, 2024, and the motion was granted on December 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on February 24, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology company into vehicle safety and autonomy. LUZZO'S MANAGEMENT: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JESUS REYES, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. LUZZO'S MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a LUZZO GROUP, LUZZO'S GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a LUZZO GROUP, JOHN DOE RESTAURANTS 1-100, MICHELE IULIANO, and ANISA MOLONEY-IULIANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-04054 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving, (2) unpaid overtime premiums due to unlawful straight rate compensation, (3) unpaid spread of hours premiums, (4) liquidated damages, (5) statutory penalties, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Reyes was hired by the Defendants to work as a Counterperson at Defendants' Luzzo's Wall Street location. His employment with Defendants ended in January 2025 due to the closure of Luzzo's Wall Street. Luzzo's Management, LLC owns and operates restaurants in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MADRUGA IRON WORKS: Cole Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madruga Iron Works, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Madruga Iron Works, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0007224 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Madruga Iron Works, Inc. -- http://www.madrugaironworks.com/-- manufacturers fabricated structural metal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC 28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015 Phone: (818) 293-5623 Fax: (888) 850-1310 Email: roman@OLFLA.com MAHANOY SCI: Court Affirms Dismissal of Wyatt Civil Rights Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Paul B. Matey and Cindy K. Chung of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing Tariq Wyatt's civil rights complaint against the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Mahanoy, and the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Wyatt is a Pennsylvania state prisoner. He was previously housed at SCI Mahanoy. In 2019, SCI Mahanoy issued a memorandum advising of the prison's violence deterrence strategy. Under the policy, the prison could lock down a unit for up to 36 hours if any inmate in the unit committed certain violent acts. Wyatt claimed that the policy was unconstitutional because the prisons were punishing innocent inmates to deter future violent behavior. He further explained that he experienced psychological trauma from being punished for others' actions. According to Wyatt, he resided in a treatment unit for inmates with mental illness, he spoke with mental health staff on numerous occasions, the staff knew that he was not responding well mentally, and his mental stability was deteriorating from the lockdowns. Wyatt filed a civil rights complaint alleges that the violence reduction strategy violated his rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment. He sought declaratory relief and an injunction to cease the policy, as well as monetary damages and a jury trial. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice against the defendants in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment barred the claims. The Magistrate Judge determined that Wyatt failed to state a claim for relief against the individual defendants, but that he should be granted leave to amend the complaint. Having received no objection to the report and recommendation, the District Court adopted it, dismissing the complaint with prejudice against the defendants in their official capacities, but with leave to amend as to the defendants in their individual capacities The defendants moved to dismiss Wyatt's second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without further leave to amend. Wyatt appealed. The Third Circuit finds Wyatt's arguments on appeal lack merit. Wyatt argues that the District Court erred by failing to extend his time to object to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The Circuit Judges hold, "We cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion here because Wyatt has not established any prejudice from the claimed inability to object. After the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, Wyatt had two opportunities to amend his complaint against the individual defendants." Wyatt also argues that the District Court erred by dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims. According to the Circuit Judges, the District Court properly explained that Wyatt did not allege in his complaint how many times he experienced the 36-hour lockdowns personally. But even if we assume that he experienced them for the more than 20 times that he alleged they occurred 'throughout the Pennsylvania state prisons,' Wyatt still failed to plead facts sufficient to state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim. Wyatt did not provide enough detail about the conditions he faced during the lockdowns, or his mental health, such that a court could conclude that he was denied basic life necessities. Wyatt argues that the District Court erred by dismissing his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. He claims that his allegations regarding his mental health were enough to show that he suffered an atypical and significant hardship. But again, Wyatt did not provide sufficient factual detail about his mental health, the Third Circuit finds. Because Wyatt failed to state a claim for relief, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider Wyatt's class action certification request, the Appellate Court concludes. The appeal is styled TARIQ WYATT, Appellant v. SUPERINTENDENT MAHANOY SCI; L. CRONAUER, DSFM Deputy Superintendent of SCI-Mahanoy; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; GEORGE LITTLE, Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, No. 24-2520 (3rd Cir.). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vh89dO MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend Lucas Class Suit in SDNY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marygold Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lucas class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh, were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended ("Securities Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF LLC, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs of Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users. Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command. [BN] MATTHEW WARREN: Vaca Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alfredo V. Vaca, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. MATTHEW WARREN, INC., a Delaware corporation; MW INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation; MW COMPONENTS, a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01475486-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04655. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum wages entitles employees to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the minimum wages unlawfully paid, interest thereon and reasonable attorney's fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. D. Andrew Quigley, Esq. Katarzyna Ryzewska, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: 213-532-2000 Facsimile: 213-532-2020 Email: ebvicente@hunton.com aquigley@Hunton.com kryzewska@hunton.com MAXIMUS INC: MOVEit Cybersecurity Suit Limited Discovery Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maximus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that limited discovery ongoing for the MOVEit cybersecuritiy MDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On August 1, 2023, a purported class action was filed against Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia arising out of the MOVEit cybersecurity incident – Bishop v. Maximus Federal Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (U.S. Dist. Ct. E. D. VA). The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of individuals, alleges, among other things, that the Company's negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information. The plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at trial. Over the course of the next year, twelve similar cases were filed in federal courts across the country (inclusive of one case filed in state court and removed to federal court by the Company). On October 4, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a Motion to Transfer creating a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the District of Massachusetts for all cases related to the MOVEit cybersecurity incident. Each of the actions pending in federal courts are now centralized in the MDL. On December 12, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), challenging Plaintiffs' standing to bring this suit, dismissing claims brought by four of the Plaintiffs in the MOVEit MDL. None of the dismissed claims were asserted against the Company. The Court has also named the Company as a bellwether defendant in the MDL. The Company and the other bellwether defendants have submitted motions to dismiss the pending actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Company and the other bellwether defendants are participating in phased discovery, with discovery partially limited prior to the Court's decision on the Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Maximus covers a broad array of services, including the operation of large health insurance eligibility and enrollment programs, clinical services, including assessments, appeals, and independent medical reviews and technology services. MCLAREN HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Wehrle Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOYCE WEHRLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-11420-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., May 14, 2025) seeks to address Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google, Inc., without consent, through the use of tracking software embedded in Defendant's website. The Defendant owns and controls the website, https://www.mclaren.org/, which it encourages patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, and more. Unbeknownst to patients, going back years and continuing through at least December 2023, the Defendant installed and maintained third-party tracking technologies such as the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, and Google Tag Manager on its Website. These Tracking Tools track and collect patients' communications with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the patients' web browsers to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Meta or Google, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of the Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their private information. McLaren Health Care Corporation is a Michigan-based health care provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Julia G. Prescott, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 E-mail: nick@coulsonpc.com jprescott@coulsonpc.com MONEY SOURCE: Class Certification Granted in Hiller TCPA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable John J. Tuchi of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel in the case captioned as Natasha Hiller, Plaintiff, v. Money Source Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-00235-JJT (D. Ariz.). In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant called her and numerous other similarly situated individuals in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff and all other putative class members entered into relations with Defendant that permitted Defendant to place certain kinds of debt collection calls to their cell phones. After receiving such calls, the putative class members each verbally informed Defendant that they wished to receive no further calls on their cell phones. The extent to which these oral statements constitute legally operative revocations of consent is one of the core issues that the parties dispute. Defendant's employees created written notes of the putative class members' verbal requests to be placed on a do-not-call list. However, according to Plaintiff, Defendant's policy was to disregard such oral requests and to instead only honor written requests. She contends that this policy is illegal under the TCPA. Each putative class member continued to receive calls within the scope of the TCPA from Defendant after orally requesting to be exempted from such calls. Plaintiff seeks three forms of relief thereunder: (1) an order enjoining further violations, Sec. 227(b)(3)(A); (2) actual damages or $500 in statutory damages for each violation, whichever is greater, Sec. 227(b)(3)(B); and (3) treble damages for willful or knowing violations, Sec. 227(b)(3). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court certify a class consisting of: All persons throughout the United States or its territories (1) to whom Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (3) in connection with which Defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) after the called party requested that Defendant stop placing telephone calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to their cellular telephone, as recorded in Defendant's business records, (5) from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of class certification. Plaintiff seeks to proceed only under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that a proposed class action satisfy the elements of predominance and superiority. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Motion fails to satisfy the predominance and superiority criteria under Rule 23(b), as well as the numerosity and commonality criteria under Rule 23(a). Defendant does not contest the Rule 23(a) elements of typicality or adequacy of representation. Defendant identifies two issues, one of fact and one of law, that it contends affect each class member individually and predominate over questions that are common to all class members. Those two issues are: (1) whether each individual class member revoked his or her consent to receive calls and (2) which body of Circuit law governs which calls. The Court agrees with Defendant that the question of consent revocation is a primarily individual issue, but it rejects Defendant's contention that the consent-revocation inquiry predominates over the issues in this case that are common to all class members. Defendant's core argument is that, because the natural-language notes of its employees are at times unclear or ambiguous, the determination of whether each putative class member revoked his or her consent will be so complicated as to predominate over all common issues. The Court disagrees. The issues that the Court predicts will predominate in this lawsuit are the questions touching upon Defendant's allegedly illegal policy. Plaintiff requests treble damages, which are only available upon a showing of willful or knowing misconduct. In support of that prayer for relief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant adopted an illegal policy requiring its employees to dishonor most verbal revocations of consent and instead demand written revocations. The Court finds these issues -- the existence of the allegedly illegal policy and whether that policy satisfies the TCPA's willfulness provision -- to be (1) amenable to class-wide proof and (2) likely to predominate over the individual questions in this case. It concludes that the adjudication of Defendant's allegedly illegal policy is common to all class members and renders this matter an appropriate class action. Defendant's second argument against predominance rests upon its assertion that a circuit split exists as to whether a party can unilaterally revoke consent. Although it is true that there is a circuit split regarding the extent to which a party can unilaterally revoke consent under the TCPA, Defendant fails to demonstrate that this circuit split is relevant in this case, the Court finds. The Court therefore rejects Defendant's objection to class certification on this basis. Defendant asserts that superiority is absent under Rule 23(b)(3) for the same reasons that predominance is absent. As Defendant's superiority argument is indistinguishable from its predominance argument, the Court simply reiterates its predominance analysis and rejects Defendant's superiority argument on the same grounds. Defendant objects to numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1). Plaintiff's proposed class consists of ninety-two cell phone numbers. Defendant now contends that it keeps a separate list of do-not-call requests on a number-by-number basis and that Plaintiff's class is poorly constructed because it fails to account for loan accounts that have more than one associated phone number. At this juncture, the Court will simply find that Plaintiff has established a prima facie showing of numerosity. Defendant also contests the presence of commonality under Rule 23(a)(2). Defendant's objection is predicated on the same arguments presented with respect to predominance, as well as an additional argument resting on the Supreme Court's opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes According to the Court, Defendant's commonality argument fails because in this case, unlike in Wal-Mart, Plaintiff's claim clearly rests upon a policy that is common to all class members. Plaintiff states in the introduction to her complaint, this case is fundamentally about Defendant's allegedly illegal policy to deliberately dishonor oral revocations of consent. Plaintiff's complaint unquestionably meets Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement, as the allegedly illegal policy undergirding this class action is precisely the type of "pattern or practice" or "corporate policy" that the Supreme Court held in Wal-Mart satisfies the commonality criterion, the Court concludes. The Court finds this action appropriate for class certification. Perceiving no reason why the Weitz Firm and the Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger should not be appointed class counsel, the Court also finds Plaintiff's class-counsel request appropriate. The Court certifies the following class under Rule 23: All persons throughout the United States or its territories (1) to whom Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (3) in connection with which Defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) after the called party requested that Defendant stop placing telephone calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to their cellular telephone, as recorded in Defendant's business records, (5) from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of class certification. The Court appoints Natasha Hiller as the class representative and The Weitz Firm, LLC. The Court appoints The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC as Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1dUbHE from PacerMonitor.com. MORSE OPERATIONS: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morse Operations, Inc. The case is styled as Kristi Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Morse Operations, Inc. doing business as: Ed Morse Delray Toyota, Case No. 9:25-cv-80619-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. Morse Operations, Inc., doing business as Ed Morse Automotive Group -- https://www.edmorse.com/ -- operates as an automotive dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NEIGHBORS CREDIT: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wilbur Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WILBUR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEIGHBORS CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00703 (E.D. Mo., May 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former customers, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of its fiduciary duties, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer numerous injuries, the suit asserts. Neighbors Credit Union is a credit union with locations throughout Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com NELNET SERVICING: Wins Bid for Partial Dismissal of Stevens Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert C. Chambers of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted Nelnet Servicing, LLC's motion for partial dismissal of the first amended complaint in the case captioned as AMANDA STEVENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-0280 (S.D. West Va.). Count I from the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. In her First Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC is a company retained to collect student loan debts. There are a variety of repayment plans available to borrowers, and Nelnet is responsible for calculating borrowers' monthly payments under those plans. Some of those plans are income-driven repayment plans that are designed to help borrowers who cannot afford high monthly payments due to their income and household size. Under two of the plans, the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) plans, Nelnet advises borrowers that their monthly payments will generally be 10 percent of your discretionary income' after reviewing adjusted gross income, family size, and total loan balance. Plaintiff asserts she enrolled in the SAVE plan, owed approximately $35,000 in student loans, and has a gross income of $5,833.32 per month. Therefore, she maintains that 10 percent of her unadjusted gross income would be $583.33. However, Nelnet mailed her a monthly statement in December 2023 that miscalculated her January 2024payment as $1,969.44, which was above the highest repayment plan option even offered to borrowers. Plaintiff asserts Nelnet reported this inflated monthly payment amount to the credit bureaus, which resulted in her being denied a mortgage loan in January 2024. Plaintiff alleges in Count I on behalf of herself and the putative class that Nelnet violated West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-1271 and Sec. 1282 of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). Specifically, Plaintiff claims: Defendant Nelnet has engaged in repeated violations of Article 2 of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, including, but not limited to, a. using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt from Plaintiff in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-1-128; b. utilizing fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations or means regarding Plaintiff's student loan status in an attempt to collect a debt or obtain information regarding Plaintiff in violation of West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-127; and c. making false representations and/or implications of the character, extent, or amount of a claim against a consumer violating West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-127(d). With respect to her WVCCPA claim, Plaintiff expressly disavows any credit reporting damages and, instead, seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, and general damages for the Defendant's negligence as alleged in Count I of the Complaint. In its motion, Nelnet argues Count I must be dismissed because Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Specifically, Nelnet states that Plaintiff has not alleged she made excessive payments or expended any resources to get temporary relief, such as applying for a forbearance or deferment, from the alleged miscalculation. To the contrary, she acknowledges that Nelnet placed her in an administrative forbearance while it worked to recalculate her correct monthly payment. Absent a claim of some concrete injury as a result of a WVCCPA violation, Nelnet asserts Plaintiff lacks standing. In the alternative, Nelnet argues her WVCCPA claim fails to state a claim that satisfies the pleading standards under Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a factual basis for actual damages and she has not met her burden of demonstrating that she has suffered a concrete injury as a result of a violation of the WVCCPA. Having found in this case that Plaintiff has not alleged factual support in Count I that she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent and her claim is not a close historical or common-law analogue to a breach of contract, the Court finds she has not met her burden of establishing Article III standing, and the Court must dismiss the claim. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EspCPO from PacerMonitor.com. NEVADA: Court Dismisses Gonzaga Class Suit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRISSEL A. GONZAGA, DIANE CARDONE, DAWNYELL FLYNN, DALANA SMEDLEY, CHRISTINA SCHMIDT, TARNISHIA HARRIS, QUIDNA FORRAW, ERIKA WINN, RONDA WILLSON, KATHLEEN CARTER, KEYIANA CARTER, ANGELICA GARICA, RHONDA RAMSEY, RONEA CLARK, DANAMAE SMITH, MARIA BELTRAN, TALIA WESTBROOK, JESSICA WILLIAMS, ALLI WILLIAMSON, BREEZY HARMY, LAZARIA JONES, BRANDI EISENHOFEL, ROSALIND FLETCHER, STACEY CONTSALEWAY, TALINA BANKS, BRIANNA KNOX, HEATHER WHALEN, ROSALIND WILSON, MELISSA SANDOVAL, AND HAILEY MATTHEWS, v. STATE OF NEVADA NDOC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02353-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff Gonzaga's in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court further entered an order that Plaintiff Gonzaga has 60 days from the date of this order to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a new fully complete IFP with all three required documents: (1) a completed application with the inmate’s two signatures on page 3, (2) a completed financial certificate that is signed both by the inmate and the prison or jail official, and (3) a copy of the inmate’s trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. It is further ordered that: -- If Plaintiff Gonzaga fails to timely pay the filing fee or file a complete IFP, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. -- The Clerk of the Court file the complaint. -- The complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. -- If Plaintiff Gonzaga chooses to file an amended complaint in this case, Plaintiff Gonzaga will file the amended complaint within 60 days from the date of entry of this order. -- If Plaintiff Gonzaga fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. -- The motion for class certification and motion for appointment of counsel for class are denied. -- All Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Grissel A. Gonzaga are dismissed without prejudice from this case. -- The Clerk of the Court will send each plaintiff (Grissel A. Gonzaga, Diane Cardone, Dawnyell Flynn, Dalana Smedley, Christina Schmidt, Tarnishia Harris, Quidna Forraw, Erika Winn, Ronda Willson, Kathleen Carter, Keyiana Carter, Angelica Garica, Rhonda Ramsey, Ronea Clark, Danamae Smith, Maria Beltran, Talia Westbrook, Jessica Williams, Alli Williamson, Breezy Harmy, Lazaria Jones, Brandi Eisenhofel, Rosalind Fletcher, Stacey Cont-Saleway, Talina Banks, Brianna Knox, Heather Whalen, Rosalind Wilson, Melissa Sandoval, and Hailey Matthews) the approved form for filing a section 1983 complaint with instructions, an IFP application for an inmate with instructions, and a copy of the original complaint. Nevada is a landlocked state in the Western United States. It borders Oregon to the northwest, Idaho to the northeast, California to the west, Arizona to the southeast, and Utah to the east. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gq1tLJ at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Pierre Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, TD BANK N.A., DUANE READE INC., B & H PHOTO VIDEO PRO AUDIO LLC, BLOOMBERG L.P., TRIHOP 14TH STREET LLC, DOES NOS. 1-10, SILVERSEAL CORPORATION d/b/a S.E.A.L. SECURITY LLC, and GARDAWORLD SECURITY CORPORATION d/b/a GARDWORLD, Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule 23(e), the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of: "All current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any Duane Reade location in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program, at any time from July 3, 2014, through the date of this Order." For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "All current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any Duane Reade location in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program, at any time from July 3, 2017 through the date of this Order." The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiff Burbran Pierre to represent the Class and finds that the Plaintiff meets all the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Court will conduct a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Oct. 28, 2025 at 11 a.m. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fHcxz0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Ewing Due June 6 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATON), Case No. 1:22-cv-02136 (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=ql8KMn at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Class Cert Bid Briefs in Jackson Due June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATON), Case No. 1:22-cv-02174 (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=aiKnaT at no extra charge.[CC] NEXSTAR MEDIA: Local TV Advertising MDL Trial Set for April 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nexstar Media 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 9, 2025, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has scheduled a trial date for the Local TV advertising MDL in April 2026. Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation"). On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is ongoing. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019; Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint added additional defendants and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint added two additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant but does not make material changes to the allegations. The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation. The court has set a trial date in April 2026. Nexstar and Tribune deny all allegations against them and will defend their advertising practices. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. NUVIA MSO: Dixon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- David Dixon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NUVIA MSO, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00397-DAK-JCB (D. Utah, May 20, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendant unlawfully failed to pay Inside Sales Representatives (ISRs) overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek pursuant to the requirements of the FLSA. Defendant willfully misclassifies ISRs as exempt from overtime pay, despite knowing that such ISRs' primary duties do not fall within any of the FLSA's exemptions to the statute's overtime pay requirements. As a result, Defendant unlawfully failed to pay ISRs, including Plaintiff, for overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours during a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an ISR from October 2024 to March 2025. The Defendant is a provider of dental implant services that maintains business affiliations with locally owned and operated dental practices and offers non-clinical administrative, marketing, and operational support services to each affiliated center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Thorne, Esq. Anthony G. Tenney, Esq. SCHOLNICK THORNE HOLLAND 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Phone: 801.359.4169 Fax: 801.359.4313 Email: jonathan@utahjobjustice.com anthony@utahjobjustice.com - and - Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com OLAM ADVISERS: Shields Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olam Advisers Inc. The case is styled as Bradley Shields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Olam Advisers Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-80630-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Olam Advisers Inc. -- https://www.olamgroup.com/ -- is a financial consulting firm based in Key Biscayne, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com ON24 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- ON24 Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, certain current and former members of its Board of Directors and the underwriters that participated in the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") are named as defendants in a consolidated putative class action, captioned In re ON24, Inc. Securities Litigation, 4:21-cv-08578-YGR (filed in November 2021), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock issued in connection with its IPO. The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts about ON24’s growth and customer base. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2022, which the district court granted with leave to amend in July 2023. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint in September 2023, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2023. In March 2024, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order and that appeal is currently ongoing. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit. ON24, Inc. provides a leading, cloud-based intelligent engagement platform that combines best-in-class experiences with personalization and content, to enable sales and marketing organizations to capture and act on connected insights at scale. The Company's platform offers a portfolio of interactive and hyper-personalized digital experience products that creates and captures actionable, real-time data at scale from millions of professionals to provide businesses with buying signals and behavioral insights to efficiently convert prospects into customers. PCAM LLC: Imran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PCAM, LLC. The case is styled as Maria D. Imran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PCAM, LLC, Case No. 25STCV15023 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." PCAM, LLC doing business as Parking Company of America -- https://www.parkpca.com/ -- is a recognized innovator in the parking and transportation industry.[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 PEAK 24 LLC: Faces M.K. Suit Over Negligent Sales Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- M.K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEAK 24 LLC, doing business as OPIA, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-01038 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2025) is a civil class action against the Defendant for its false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) tablet and extract shot products in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, 7-OH is an alkaloid (psychoactive chemical) found in the kratom plant (mitragyna speciosa). Kratom is both a plant and a drug. The plant originates from Southeast Asia where its leaves have long been ingested to produce stimulant and opiate-like effects. Use of kratom in the United States was practically non existent until the last decade. Since then, kratom has become a massively popular substance. This is because it is currently legal to consume, and because of the stimulant and opiate-like effects produced by its two major alkaloids: 7-OH and mitragynine. However, what consumers do not know is that the opiate-like effects produced by mitragynine and 7-OH are not the result of novel chemical interactions in the brain. Rather, these alkaloids behave, in part, exactly like opioids. That is, the mitragynine and 7-OH alkaloids found in the kratom plant bind to the same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, and other opiates/opioids. Consequently, kratom consumption has the same risks of addiction, dependency, and painful withdrawal symptoms, among various other negative side effects as traditional opioids. The Defendant has intentionally failed to disclose these material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH consumption anywhere on its 7-OH Products' labeling, packaging, or marketing material. As a result, Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws. The Defendant relies on its Products' vague packaging and consumers' limited knowledge of 7-Hydroxymytragynine to get unsuspecting people addicted to its Products and reap substantial profits from these addictions, says the suit. Plaintiff M.K. is a resident and citizen of Fountain Valley, California, in the County of Orange. M.K. first began using 7-OH products in or around August 2024. Peak 24 LLC, d/b/a OPIA, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its 7-OH Products in California and throughout the United States through various third-party brick-and-mortar and online retailers and owns and operates the website www.OPIAkratom.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Ste. 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Deforest Sues Over Misleading Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlin Deforest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC AND PHILIPS HOLDING USA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02852 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2025), is brought under New York's Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes, ("New York Consumer Protection Act"), arising out of Defendants' false and misleading advertising of their pacifiers featuring the prominent misrepresentation that they are "orthodontic," which is deceptive and misleading to reasonable consumers. The Defendants' advertisement and prominent use of the term "orthodontic" is misleading to a reasonable consumer and is an affirmative representation that their Orthodontic Pacifiers promote healthy oral development or improve oral outcomes. Defendants' use of the term "orthodontic" is designed to induce consumers to pay a premium price and buy the Orthodontic Pacifiers that do not perform as promised for their children. Defendants' Orthodontic Pacifiers cannot, and do not, support healthy oral and orofacial development of children. On the Orthodontic Pacifiers' packaging and in their uniform marketing and advertising, Defendants fail to disclose the material fact that prolonged pacifier use is detrimental to oral and orofacial health and development or that such use increases the risk of developing numerous forms of dental malocclusions and teeth misalignment. Through their advertising statements, Defendants induced Plaintiff to purchase their Orthodontic Pacifiers. Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendants' Orthodontic Pacifiers would promote healthy oral development or improve oral outcomes for her children. Plaintiff and putative Class Members were injured at the time of purchase because they would not have paid a premium price for Defendants' Orthodontic Pacifiers had Defendants made truthful advertising statements and/or disclosed material information concerning the non-orthodontic nature of the Orthodontic Pacifiers. Through false, misleading and deceptive advertisements, Defendants violated New York law by representing that their Orthodontic Pacifiers promote healthy oral development or improve oral outcomes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased 2 packs of Defendants' Orthodontic Pacifiers Philips Avent Ultra Soft Pacifiers—for her child from Amazon.com. The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute and sell the Orthodontic Pacifiers throughout New York and nationwide. Defendants' Orthodontic Pacifiers come in a variety of styles, colors and sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. Anna K. D'Agostino, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Email: lrubinow@millershah.com jcshah@millershah.com akdagostino@millershah.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. James M. Lamarca, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Pl. Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (412) 314-0515 Email: ek@waykayslay.com jlamarca@waykayslay.com PHILIPS: SoClean, DW's Bid to Dismiss CPAP Complaint Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated case captioned IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS, MDL No. 3014 (W.D. Pa.), Senior Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied as moot SoClean, Inc. and DW Management Services, LLC's motions to dismiss the amended master third-party complaint filed by Philips with respect to CPAP device personal injury claims. The court has been presiding as a transferee court over two related MDLs, MDL No. 3014 (the "Philips MDL") and MDL No. 3021 (the "SoClean MDL"), for a few years. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred cases to the Philips MDL starting after the June 2021 recall of approximately 10,000,000 continuous positive air pressure ("CPAP") machines and other devices sold by Philips (the "Devices"). Among the claims in the SoClean MDL is a dispute between SoClean and Philips arising from Philips' alleged disparagement of SoClean's marketing and selling of an ozone cleaning system for use with, among others, Philips' CPAP machines. Until the filing of the master third-party contribution complaint, SoClean was not part of the Philips MDL. There have been substantial efforts to coordinate activities in both MDLs to promote efficiencies and economy for the parties and the court. The Philips MDL, at the request of the parties, was organized into three master complaints that were filed on the MDL docket: master complaints for: (1) economic loss claims, (2) personal injury claims, and (3) medical monitoring claims. The concept of a master third-party complaint for contribution claims by Philips against SoClean with respect to personal injury claims was previewed for the court by counsel for Philips at a status conference on March 14, 2024. On May 10, 2024, Philips filed a master third-party complaint against SoClean, asserting that SoClean is responsible for some share of the personal injuries of certain plaintiffs who used a SoClean device in connection with a Philips CPAP device. At least one of the Philips third-party plaintiffs and one of the SoClean third-party defendants are citizens of Delaware. The master third-party complaint asserts only state law claims for contribution. Under those circumstances, there is no federal court that could exercise original diversity or federal question jurisdiction over any of the contribution claims. Philips asserts that this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the contribution claims filed in the master third-party complaint because they are intertwined and related to the claims at issue in the remainder of this case, i.e., the personal injury claims in the MDL as a whole. Philips alleges that venue is proper in this court "for pretrial proceedings" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and venue is appropriate in the courts from which the cases were transferred. On Aug. 13, 2024, Philips filed an amended master third-party complaint, which is the operative pleading in issue. The jurisdictional and venue allegations remained unchanged. To date, no short form contribution third-party complaints have been filed. SoClean filed a motion to strike/dismiss the amended master third-party complaint for numerous substantive and procedural reasons. DW filed a separate motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court sua sponte raised the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over the contribution claims asserted with respect to claims identified on the census registry, orally dismissed the master third-party complaint on the record on Feb. 25, 2025, without prejudice to Philips' ability to file a second amended third-party complaint, and instructed counsel to confer about deadlines. The dismissal mooted SoClean's motion to dismiss and DW's motion to dismiss, the Court finds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lbRawJ from PacerMonitor.com. POWERSCHOOL GROUP: North Country Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as North Country Supervisory Union, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01165 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01312 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Patrick Frantz William B. Shinoff FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 860 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-5945 Fax: (619) 525-7672 Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com PREMIER NUTRITION: Issue Preclusion Granted in Dent Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted, in part, plaintiff Sandra Dent's motion for application of issue preclusion in the case captioned as SANDRA DENT, Plaintiff, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06721-RS (N.D. Cal.). The court precludes a defendant from relitigating certain issues decided in a prior New York class action, while requiring the plaintiff to prove causation and intent under Illinois law. Plaintiff Sandra Dent brings this suit on behalf of herself and a class of Illinois purchasers of Premier Nutrition's product, Joint Juice. Dent avers Premier falsely marketed its product, in particular misrepresenting the power of Joint Juice to alleviate conditions such as arthritis. Dent's claims are brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505. Another plaintiff, Mary Beth Montera, sued Joint Juice on behalf of herself and a New York class of purchasers under two provisions of New York's General Business Law. Montera prevailed in front of a jury and almost entirely on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Dent now seeks to use the judgment from Montera to estop Premier from relitigating certain issues decided against it in the first trial. The court notes, "To recover under the ICFA, a plaintiff must demonstrate: '(1) a deceptive or unfair act or practice by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deceptive or unfair practice; and (3) the unfair or deceptive practice occurred during a course of conduct involving trade or commerce.' In addition, 'a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of the injury.'" Defendant moves to oppose plaintiff's motion for issue preclusion, arguing against its application. In reviewing the motion, the court applies California law, stating, "Federal common law determines whether a previous judgment can have preclusive effect in a new matter. . . . California law therefore applies." The court accepts Montera's findings as final, noting, "Premier concedes the verdict and final judgment in Montera was a final adjudication against the same defendant as here." Dent argues Montera decided the advertising of Joint Juice was materially deceptive, as defined by Illinois law. The court finds, "Because the Montera jury determined Premier's advertising of Joint Juice was a deceptive act or practice using the same standards imposed by Illinois law, Montera is issue preclusive on the first element of the ICFA." On materiality, the court states, "Dent points out Illinois courts also use the same formulation offered to the jury in Montera. . . . In Ash v. PSP Distrib., LLC, materialit necessarilyy is described as 'what a reasonable consumer would regard as important in making a decision.'" Dent also avers Montera has already determined Premier's conduct at issue here involved trade or commerce. Premier does not dispute this claim. The court confirms, "By finding that Premier violated GBL Section 349, the jury found that Premier's advertising and sale of Joint Juice 'occurred during a course of conduct involving trade or commerce' in terms of the ICFA." For damages, Dent argues that although a factfinder would need to determine the total amount of damages owed to the Illinois class, the measure of harm was already decided in Montera. The court agrees, stating, "The jury in Montera, in finding liability and awarding the entire purchase price to consumers, necessarily concluded Joint Juice was valueless for its advertised purpose." Defendant argues preclusion is unfair due to the bellwether nature of Montera, but the court rejects this, stating, "Premier contends any application of collateral estoppel would be fundamentally unfair because Premier did not reasonably expect the 'bellwether' trial to preclude issues in any future litigation. . . . Dent has the better read of the tea leaves, as it seems likely the Circuit would permit bellwethers to decide identical issues in subsequent cases." Defendant also claims new evidence, but the court finds, "Premier's argument fails because new witnesses or cumulative evidence do not negate issue preclusion." Defendant raises a First Amendment defense, which the court dismisses, stating, "Premier claims it is entitled to raise a First Amendment defense to liability, in spite of any potential issue preclusion. . . . Based on the findings of the jury in Montera, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, Premier cannot raise a First Amendment defense to its conduct." Upon careful review, the court concludes plaintiff cannot preclude intent or causation. The court states, "The Montera jury did not need to reach any conclusion as to Premier's intent. . . . Therefore, this element was not decided in Montera and cannot be precluded in Dent's case.” Similarly, "Given the daylight between the causation found in Montera and the causation required by the ICFA, Dent is not entitled to preclusion on classwide causation." Defendant argues a stay pending its certiorari petition, but the court denies this, stating, "The pendency of an appeal does not bar the application of issue preclusion." Accordingly, the court rules Dent's motion for issue preclusion is granted in part. Montera decided the materiality of Premier's misrepresentations, Premier's actions in trade or commerce, and the measure of harm. Therefore, Premier is estopped from relitigating those issues here. However, to succeed on her claims, Dent must still prove causation and intent to deceive under the IFCA. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nNR4jT from PacerMonitor.com. PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Rose Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D. ROSE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. The proposed class representatives cannot adequately represent the class, to the extent a cohesive class (discussed next) can even be identified. Due to the wide variations in the issues and claims presented by the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class, not to mention the types and amounts of damages sought, common issues do not predominate. The Plaintiffs seek class certification as to the PrimeCare Defendants and Wexford Defendants, proposing the following class definition: Generally, all current and former pretrial detainees and inmates at Southern Regional Jail from Sept. 22, 2020[,] to present. As to PrimeCare Defendants, the proposed class period is Sept. 22, 2020, to June 25, 2022. As to Wexford Defendants the proposed class period is June 26, 2022, to present. The Plaintiffs include ROBERT C. CHURCH, SR., NICOLE HENRY, EDWARD L. HARMON, WILLIAM BOHN, TONYA PERSINGER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, BRYAN STAFFORD, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FLEENOR, JR., JOHN CRABTREE, STEVEN MARTIN, GARY TOLER, ELGIE ADKINS, and SABRINA EAGLE. The Defendants include THOMAS WEBER, BRETT BAVINGTON, TODD HESKINS, KRISTA VALLANDINGHAM, MELISSA JEFFERY, BRANDY EASTRIDGE, HELEN PERKINS, JESSICA MILLER, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., MARY STONE, DANIEL CONN, ELAINE GEDMAN, JOHN FROELICH, HUMAYAN RASHID, M.D., ANGELA NICHOLSON, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, AMBER DUNCAN, LISA MULLENS, LPN, CASSEY BOLEN, JOHN PENNINGTON, MA, LPC, NCC, NCSC, KENNADI SMITH, LPN, ASHLEY VALLANDINGHAM, LPN, BRITTANI MARSHALL, RN, ASHLEY STROUP, LPN, JOHN AND JANE DOE PRIMECARE AND WEXFORD EMPLOYEES, and TAYLOR BROOKS. PrimeCare offers a customized health care program that includes medical, mental health, dental, pharmacy, laboratory, nursing services, risk management, etc. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LMnRO4 at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Perkins Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valerie Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 25CU016718C was removed from the Superior Court for San Diego County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on May 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01305-TWR-VET. In this putative class action under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), plaintiff claims that P&G falsely or misleadingly labeled its ZzzQuil Pure Zzzs melatonin products (the "Products") with the tagline "HELPS YOU FALL ASLEEP NATURALLY," when, in fact, the melatonin and other ingredients in the Products are purportedly synthetic or artificial.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Keri E. Borders, Esq. Rebecca Johns, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 443 4355 Facsimile: +1 213 443 4310 Email: dgiali@kslaw.com kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Williams Class Suit Stayed Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Provident Financial Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025, that the Riverside Superior Court stayed the Williams class suit pending mediation. On December 14, 2023, a former employee, Jennifer Williams, filed a class action complaint in Riverside Superior Court asserting similar claims. The class action was subsequently dismissed, and Ms. Williams filed a PAGA-only representative action on February 2, 2024, in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Both matters were stayed pending mediation. Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the holding company for Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. that provides community and mortgage banking services to consumers and small to mid-sized businesses in the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The company was founded in 1956 and is based in Riverside, California. QUALITY CARRIERS: Class Allegations in Smith, et al. Suit Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part the motion Quality Carriers, Inc. to dismiss and strike plaintiffs' class and collective action allegations in the case captioned as WINSTON SMITH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-2815-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs Winston Smith, Duane Nelson, Jerome Jones, and Fred Dean were full-time delivery drivers for Defendant Quality Carriers, Inc. out of a Quality Carriers terminal in Rahway, New Jersey. Quality Carriers is a Florida-based delivery company specializing in the transport of chemical materials and hazardous products. Plaintiffs each signed independent contractor agreements with Quality Carriers. They allege that they and other drivers exercise virtually no independent control over their own work life and therefore they are employees of Quality Carriers under New Jersey and federal law. Plaintiffs initiated this action against Quality Carriers on Dec. 6, 2024. They filed an amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2025, which is the operative complaint. The operative complaint alleges three counts: a violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (Count One); a violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (Count Two); and a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count Three). (Id.). Plaintiffs bring Counts One and Two on a class basis. Plaintiffs bring Count Three on a collective basis. Quality Carriers moves to dismiss Count One, strike the class and collective allegations, and strike the request to recover punitive damages. Quality Carriers argues that Count One should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court disagrees. The Court concludes that the mere existence of the independent contractor agreements is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs' NJWPL claims should be dismissed. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts that, if true, would show that their actual relationship was functionally an employer-employee relationship, the Court finds. The Motion is denied in so far as it seeks the dismissal of Count One. Quality Carriers asks the Court to enforce the parties' class and collective action waivers and strike Plaintiffs' class and collective action allegations. The Court agrees the waivers should be enforced. The class allegations are within Counts One and Two, which are state law claims over which the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The collective allegations are only within Count Three, which is the FLSA claim. Plaintiffs argue that the class action waivers are unenforceable both as a matter of public policy and because they are unconscionable. According to the Court, the waiver does not fall into either of the two categories in which courts find contractual provisions unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Plaintiffs may find it convenient to proceed as a class, but the class waiver does not serve to limit their ability to recover damages under the NJWHL and NJWPL. Thus, the class action waivers are not unenforceable as a matter of public policy, the Court concludes. The Court is also unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' argument that the waivers should be voided as unconscionable. The class action waivers are inapposite to the cases in which contract provisions were found unconscionable because they prohibited plaintiffs from recovering the full scope of damages to which they were entitled under the law. The class waivers do not limit the actual damages obtainable by Plaintiffs. Thus, the class action waivers are not substantively unconscionable. As the Court finds that the waivers are not substantively unconscionable, the Court does not need to analyze whether the waivers are procedurally unconscionable. The Court finds no justification to decline enforcement of the collective action waiver. Therefore, the waivers should be given their full effect, and Plaintiffs should be barred from bringing their claims as a class. The Court strikes Plaintiffs' class allegations and grants Quality Carriers' Motion in so far as it seeks the striking of these allegations. The Court agrees with Quality Carriers that punitive damages are unavailable under the NJWPL, NJWHL, and FLSA. Therefore, the Court strikes Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages and grants the Motion on this issue. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pGxIdo from PacerMonitor.com. R & S TOWER SERVICES: Wors Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- James Wors, individually and for others similarly situated v. R & S TOWER SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00750 (E.D. Mo., May 22, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But R&S does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, R&S requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to mark that they took a "meal break" each workday, regardless of whether they actually received a bona fide meal break (R&S's "meal deduction policy"). Thus, R&S does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, R&S requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and subjects them to work interruptions during attempted "meal breaks." Additionally, R&S pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for "Drive Time", but fails to include these hours in determining when the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees work in excess of 40 hours in a week (R&S's "drivetime policy"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for R&S as a Technician 2 and Lead Technician from September 2016 until June 2024, including in Kentucky during 2023 and Illinois during 2023 and 2024. R&S is a contractor that "builds and maintains cellular infrastructure with skilled field technicians and tradespeople."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Phone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 448-4320 Email: tony@epfirm.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: 361-452-1279 Fax: 361-452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com REBUILT BROKERAGE: Class Certification Hearing in Chavez Cancelled ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANANDA CAMARGO CHAVEZ v. REBUILT BROKERAGE LLC, REBUILT OFFERS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00504-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan D. Albright entered an order cancelling class certification hearing [zoom]. Accordingly, the case having been set for class certification hearing [ZOOM] on Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 03:00 PM is cancelled until further order of the court. Rebuilt is a real estate investment firm focused on sourcing off-market, distressed real estate opportunities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CMYujG at no extra charge.[CC] REPUBLIC SERVICES: Overcharged Customers Thru Unfair Fees, GF Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GF RESTAURANTS GROUP, INC. d/b/a CRYING THAIGER; PEEL PIZZA COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-11387 (D. Mass., May 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for allegedly engaging in a widespread and systematic practice of overcharging its customers through two separate, but related coordinated schemes: implementing unlawful Rate Increases and charging unlawful, deceptive and unfair "Fuel Recovery Fees" and "Environmental Recovery Fees." According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs require solid waste disposal services and, like thousands of others, entered into standardized agreements with Republic to provide these services. These contracts contain a standard "Rate Adjustment" provision that prohibits Republic from increasing monthly rates more than is necessary to pass through cost increases it incurs plus increases in the consumer price index (CPI). In breach of this provision, and of state statutory and common law, Republic increased contract rates for Plaintiffs and putative class members without regard to increases in costs or CPI, and by far more than allowed under the contract. In addition to assessing Rate Increases on its customers, Republic has also increased prices by imposing fees it calls "Fuel/Environmental Recovery Fees" but which, have no relationship to its actual or increased fuel or environmental costs. Rather, Republic uses these Fees -- in intent and effect -- as a hidden price increase. The Fuel Recovery Fee bears absolutely no relation to Republic's actual or increased fuel costs and Republic does not use the proceeds from the Fuel Recovery Fee to offset such costs, the suit alleges. Republic Services, Inc. is one of the largest solid waste disposal companies in the United States, with some $3 billion in annual revenue.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Enright, Esq. ENRIGHT LAW LLC 696 Reservoir Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 526-2620 E-mail: tom@enrightlawoffice.com - and - Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq. Graham Cotton, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC 1919 Cahaba Road Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 208-9588 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com oscar@pricearmstrong.com graham@pricearmstrong.com RICKY DIXON: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REIYN KEOHANE; SASHA MENDOZA; SHEILA DIAMOND; KARTER JACKSON; and NELSON BOOTHE, v. RICKY D. DIXON, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00434-AW-MAF  (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a reply in support of their motion for class certification. On April 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on behalf of a putative class of individuals with gender dysphoria incarcerated by the Florida Department of Corrections whose medically necessary healthcare is being denied, withdrawn, and/or gravely threatened by FDC as a result of Health Services Bulletin 15.05.23. On May 9, 2025, the Defendants filed their response. First, the Defendants allege in their Opposition that Plaintiffs Boothe, Jackson, Mendoza, and Diamond lack standing (and allege again that Plaintiff Keohane lacks standing based on changed circumstances) and a reply is necessary to address those arguments. s Second, the Defendants argue that because they have granted variances to eleven people in the seven months that have elapsed since the policy went into effect, all individuals will receive hormones when medically necessary and thus that the class does not have commonality. Finally, discovery has continued since Plaintiffs filed their motion on April 9, 2025, and Plaintiffs have received information relevant to Defendants' arguments. Plaintiffs requested Defendants' position on this motion. Defendants do not object to the requested relief. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmHoLV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samantha J. Past, Esq. Daniel B. Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA  4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400   Miami, FL 33134   Telephone: (786) 363-2714   E-mail: dtilley@aclufl.org   spast@aclufl.org - and - Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq. Leslie Cooper , Esq. Michelle Fraling, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION  125 Broad St.  New York, NY 10004  Telephone: (212) 549-2584  E-mail: lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org  lcooper@aclu.org  michelle.fraling@aclu.org - and - Anthony Anscombe, Esq. Darlene Alt, Esq. Emily Shook , Esq. Laurel Taylor, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700  Chicago, IL 60606  Telephone: (312) 577-1300  E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com   dalt@steptoe.com  eshook@steptoe.com  lataylor@steptoe.com SAMMANN CO: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Sammann Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05419 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.peepers.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, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Peepers.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sammann Company'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. Sammann Company, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of sunglasses, reading glasses, frames, prescription lenses, fashion glasses, and related 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 SAMSONITE COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsonite Company Stores, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-02201 (D. Minn., May 22, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.shop.samsonite.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers luggage and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, suitcases, backpacks, duffel bags, business bags, totes, travel accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SANTA MONICA, CA: More Time to File Bid for Settlement OK Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application for third extension of time for filing amended motion for preliminary approval of class certification and settlement. Santa Monica is a coastal city west of downtown Los Angeles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9zi0SX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Contreras, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 fax E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com SARAH FLINT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pittman Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sarah Flint, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05414 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://sarahflint.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, inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Sarahflint.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sarah Flint'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. Sarah Flint, Inc. operates the website that offers handcrafted designer shoes for women, including flats, heels, sandals, boots, sneakers, loafers, pumps, and slippers.[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 SAZERAC CO: Can File Certain Sensitive Materials Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koonce v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-04323-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order permitting Defendant to seal certain materials that contain proprietary, commercially sensitive, or trade secret information being filed in connection with its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Sazerac is to file, within 30 days, redacted versions of those documents where only portions of those documents discuss information that should remain sealed. Additionally, Sazerac seeks to redact discrete sections of the memorandum of law opposing Plaintiffs' motion for class certification that quote from or refer to the Documents and to internal documents designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in Andrews v. Sazerac Company, Inc., 1:23-cv-1060 (AS). Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6pFVcr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Creighton R. Magid, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2102 Telephone: (202) 442-3555 Facsimile: (202) 315-3852 E-mail: magid.chip@dorsey.com SEALY INC: Liu, et al. Second Wage Suit to Remain in Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned as KAI LIU and JASON L. CARBONNEAU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEALY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01215-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.). The defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. Plaintiffs Kai Liu and Jason Carbonneau were hourly, non-exempt employees for Sealy, Inc. from approximately September 2019 through approximately January 2024 and from approximately July 2021 through approximately February 2024, respectively. Both Liu and Carbonneau are California residents. Defendants are business entities with their principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. As Sealy employees, Liu and Carbonneau typically worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and typically worked at least five days in a workweek. Due to certain policies, practices, or procedures, Plaintiffs suffered various California Labor Code and California Business and Professional Code violations. Plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 24, 2024. They bring one claim under the Private Attorneys General Act, alleging numerous Labor Code violations and Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime compensation; (3) failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods; (4) failed to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failed to timely pay final wages; (7) failed to provide accurate itemized wages statements; and (8) engaged in unfair business practices. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt Sealy employees. Defendants removed the action to this Court on Feb. 12, 2025, based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand on March 14, 2025. Plaintiffs move to remand on the ground that Defendants fail to meet their burden to establish that the PAGA action is preempted under Sec. 301 of the LMRA. They argue that removal is inappropriate here because the wage and hour violations underlying the PAGA claim arise wholly under state law, and the Complaint makes no allegations whatsoever regarding violations of the collective bargaining agreement. They also argue that no interpretation of the CBA's provisions or terms is required to resolve the PAGA claim, thus the rights at issue do not substantively depend on analysis of the CBAs. Relatedly, Plaintiffs emphasize that any reliance on the CBA or Labor Code exemption under Section 514 to justify preemption are, in reality, affirmative defenses that do not support preemption under Section 301. Id. at 11. Defendants argue that the PAGA claim is preempted under Section 301 because underlying Labor Code violations are preempted. They also assert that any portion of the PAGA claim that is not preempted under Section 301 is subject to supplemental jurisdiction. The Court finds Plaintiffs' PAGA claim arises from the CBA, not state law, and the claim is therefore preempted by Section 301. As a result, this Court must construe their Complaint as having raised a federal claim, providing this Court with federal question jurisdiction. The Court finds that the remaining predicate labor violation claims derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact as Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime allegation. As such, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the entire PAGA action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DbS2Qa from PacerMonitor.com. SEALY INC: Liu, et al. Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as KAI LIU and JASON L. CARBONNEAU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEALY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-05490-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.) to the state court. The defendants' request for judicial notice is granted. Plaintiffs Kai Liu and Jason Carbonneau were hourly, non-exempt employees for Sealy, Inc. from approximately September 2019 through approximately January 2024 and from approximately July 2021 through approximately February 2024, respectively. Both Liu and Carbonneau are California residents. Defendants are business entities with their principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. As Sealy employees, Liu and Carbonneau typically worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and generally worked at least five days in a workweek. Plaintiffs filed suit in suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 21, 2024. They bring eight claims under California law: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide uninterrupted meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wages statements; and (8) unfair business practices. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt Sealy employees. Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 28, 2024, under the jurisdiction of the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand on Oct. 11, 2024. Defendants assert this Court retains jurisdiction under Section 301 because the Complaint includes claims that can only be brought as contractional claims under a collective bargaining agreement, and Plaintiffs' overall employment was governed by CBAs . They argue that Plaintiffs' overtime claim (the second cause of action) is preempted because their CBA meets the threshold requirements of Labor Code Section 514, which contemplates an overtime exemption. They further argue that Plaintiffs' minimum wage claim (the first cause of action) similarly implicates the Section 514 exemption because the Complaint asserts that all Plaintiffs' off-the-clock work time constituted overtime hours. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' uninterrupted meal period claim (third cause of action), as it pertains to members of the putative class who are commercial drivers, is exempted under California Labor Code Section 512 because the CBA expressly provides for meal periods. Plaintiffs themselves do not contest that the CBA in this case qualifies under Section 514. Rather, they argue that the overtime claim seeks to enforce non-negotiable statutory rights and protections arising exclusively from state law that are independent of the CBAs. They also argue that Defendants have not provided any evidence of the employees' actual wage rates through pay records. Plaintiffs' overtime claim is governed by the CBA, not state law, and their claim is preempted by Section 301. Governing law requires that because Plaintiffs have raised a completely preempted state law claim, this Court must construe their complaint as having raised a federal claim, providing this Court with federal question jurisdiction. The Court finds that all of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims derive from the same common nucleus of operative fact and will therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fxY7M1 from PacerMonitor.com. SEAWORLD: Settlement in Coppel, et al. Suit. Gets Prelim. Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as FERNANDO COPPEL et al., individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on behalf of the SWBG, LLC, 401(K) PLAN, f/k/a "SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT 401(K) PLAN," Plaintiffs, v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1430-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Fernando Coppel, Pablo Martinez, Tyler Mitchell, Judith Uriostegui, and Elizabeth Usselman are former employees of SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. They are, or were, participants and beneficiaries of a defined contribution 401(k) retirement savings plan offered by SeaWorld. On Aug. 9, 2021, Plaintiffs brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq., on behalf of the Plan, individually and as representatives of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against: the Plan's former sponsor, SeaWorld; the Plan's current sponsor, SWBG Orlando Corporate Operations Group, LLC; the Boards of Directors of SeaWorld and OCOG; the Plan's Investment Committee, appointed by the Board; the Board and/or Investment Committee members John Does 1-50; SeaWorld CEO Marc G. Swanson; and former SeaWorld CFO Elizabeth Gulacsy. After Defendants moved to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on Dec. 22, 2021, adding Alliant Insurance Services, LLC, a consulting firm that provides financial advising services to SeaWorld, as a defendant. On March 22, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the SeaWorld Defendants' motion to dismiss. Additionally, the Court granted Alliant's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against Alliant without prejudice. On May 25, 2023, the SeaWorld Defendants moved to amend their pleading. After the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint, on July 21, 2023. The SAC asserts two causes of action: (1) breach of the duties of prudence and loyalty, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1104(a)(1), 1105(a), 1109(a), 1132(a)(2)–(3), as well as 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2550.404a-1(b); and (2) breach of the duty of prudence for failing to investigate and monitor the Plan's investments and covered service providers, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1104(a)(1), 1109(a), 1132(a)(2)–(3). On Aug. 21, 2023, the SeaWorld Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. The Court denied the SeaWorld Defendants' motion. On Nov. 1, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On May 8, 2024, the Court certified the following class and subclasses: a. All participants in or beneficiaries of the SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment 401(K) PLAN, and the SWBG, LLC 401(K) PLAN from August 10, 2015, through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants and members of the Defendant Boards and Committees. i. The MassMutual Subclass: All class members who participated in the Plan while Mass Mutual was the Plan's recordkeeper. ii. The Prudential Subclass: All class members who participated in the Plan while Prudential was the Plan's recordkeeper. iii. The Injunctive Relief Subclass: All class members who currently participate in the Plan. On Sept. 6, 2024, the Parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement. Subsequently, on Jan. 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement that included an attachment of the proposed settlement agreement. Terms of the Settlement Agreement The terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: the SeaWorld Defendants have agreed to pay a non-reversionary gross settlement amount of $1,250,000. The following will be deducted from the gross settlement amount: (1) attorneys' fees, not to exceed 35% of the gross settlement amount, or $437,500; (2) Class Counsel costs, not to exceed $273,000; (3) a Class Representative Service Award of up to $7,500 to Plaintiffs; (4) Settlement Administrative Expenses, not to exceed $17,500; a (5) recordkeeper costs. After the deductions above, the net settlement amount will be $483,000. Each class member's share will be calculated based on the sum of each class member's account balances for each year of the class period (the "Balance") and then divided by the sum of all class members' Balances. The agreement provides that members of the class agree to release Defendants from claims arising from this action. The Court concludes based that the settlement was negotiated at arm's length. The Court concludes that the costs and risks of proceeding with litigation likely render the agreed-upon settlement amount adequate relief for the class. The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of attorneys' fees of 35% of the gross settlement amount, not to exceed $437,500. The Court will determine whether the requested fees are reasonable upon final approval of the settlement. The five Class Representatives each seek a service award of $7,500. Plaintiffs' motion does not provide causes justifying this award, and does not establish that the efforts of each named Plaintiff to support the requested awards. The service awards for the Class Representatives are not a barrier to preliminary approval, but the Court will determine whether the service awards requested are reasonable on final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs estimate the class size to be approximately 40,000 potential class members. Plaintiffs propose ILYM Group, Inc. as the class notice administrator. The Court determines that ILYM is reasonably suited to administer Plaintiffs' proposed class notice plan, and preliminary appoints ILYM as the class notice administrator. The Court concludes that the proposed class notice plan is reasonably calculated to reach class members and inform them of the preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The Court preliminarily appoints Christina Humphrey Law, P.C., and Tower Legal Group, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Court preliminarily appoints ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the appointment of the proposed cy pres recipient, The Pension Rights Center. The Court approves the proposed class notice plan and schedule, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court sets the Final Approval Hearing for Aug. 14, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3B. Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Final Approval no later than June 30, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLWyRr from PacerMonitor.com. SILVER DOLLAR: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Strobert Says ---------------------------------------------------------- NYSHEEMA STROBERT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVER DOLLAR LOUNGE, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and SUN CHA SEALES, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00117-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., May 14, 2025) is an action brought by Plaintiffs seeking unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs proper wages as required by law. The Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants: (a) misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees; (b) failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked at Silver Dollar; and (c) seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA. These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from 2022-2025. During their time of being employed by Defendants, the Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contracts," says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former exotic dancer of Defendants, having been employed at Silver Dollar from approximately June 2022 to December 2024. Silver Dollar Lounge is a night club with principal place of business in Midway, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com SIMONMED IMAGING: Schwanke Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SimonMed Imaging LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence E. Schwanke, D.C. - Individually and as the representative of a class Similarly Situated Persons and Entities v. SimonMed Imaging LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01759-CDB (D. Ariz., May 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SimonMed Imaging -- https://www.simonmed.com/ -- is the largest physician owned outpatient medical imaging provider in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM LLC 134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: david@classlawyers.com phil@bockhatchllc.com - and - Jeffrey Alan Berman, Esq. ROSS & HARDIES 150 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 558-1000 - and - Trinette G. Kent, Esq. KENT LAW OFFICES 3219 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 588 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Fax: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@kentlawpc.com SIPALA LANDSCAPE: Rubio Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Alvarez Rubio and Genaro Miranda, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. SIPALA LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. and MICHAEL SIPALA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02845 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Plaintiffs for workweeks longer than 40 hours and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Plaintiffs overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants' violations of the FLSA as described in this Complaint have been willful. As a result of Defendants' unlawful acts, Plaintiffs and each Opt-In Plaintiff are entitled to recovery from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as landscapers and laborers. The Defendants are engaged in the landscaping and yard maintenance business, operating throughout Suffolk and Nassau counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com SMTC MANUFACTURING: Motion to Compel Arbitration Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California holds in abeyance SMTC Corporation and SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of California's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as PAULA DUPONT RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SMTC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-07398-JST (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendants SMTC Corporation and SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of California's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Paula Dupont Rodriguez's individual claims, dismiss Rodriguez's individual and class claims, and stay Rodriguez's PAGA claims on behalf of others. On Aug. 29, 2023, Plaintiff Paula Dupont Rodriguez brought suit against SMTC Manufacturing, CheckOne, Inc., and 40 HRS, Inc. in Alameda Superior Court for alleged: (1) failure to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages; (2) failure to provide proper meal periods; (3) failure to provide proper rest periods; (4) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay timely final wages; and (7) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. On Dec. 29, 2023, Rodriguez amended her complaint to add a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. On Oct. 17, 2024, Rodriguez filed an amendment to her complaint to add SMTC Corporation as a defendant. SMTC Corporation then filed a notice of removal of the case to this Court, invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On Nov. 25, 2024, the SMTC Defendants filed the motion to compel arbitration currently before the Court and joined by Defendants CheckOne, Inc. and 40 HRS, Inc. Ruby Brenda Torres-Mahajan, the production supervisor in the mechanical assembly department of SMTC Corporation where Rodriguez worked, provided a declaration in support of the SMTC Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. In her opposition to the SMTC Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, Rodriguez has submitted her own declaration. The SMTC Defendants argue that Rodriguez impliedly agreed to arbitrate this dispute when SMTC Corporation -- through Torres-Mahajan -- provided her with notice of the arbitration agreement, and Rodriguez continued to provide services to SMTC Corporation Rodriguez contends that she never agreed to the arbitration agreement because she was never provided with the arbitration agreement now submitted to the Court. Instead, she was only ever shown -- but not given -- a one-page document that appeared to be a signature page. Her requests to be provided a Spanish copy of the document so that she could seek legal advice were denied by Torres-Mahajan. The crux of this dispute is the element of consent. In this case, the parties dispute whether Rodriguez was ever presented with the full arbitration agreement such that her continued employment could serve as assent to be bound by the agreement. It is the SMTC Defendants' burden to prove that Rodriguez was actually provided with a copy of the arbitration agreement. As in summary judgment, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in Rodriguez's favor and avoid making credibility determinations when weighing her evidence against the SMTC Defendants'. Because the parties present conflicting facts as to the issue of consent, and the SMTC Defendants have not provided any evidence beyond their witness declaration that Rodriguez in fact received a copy of the arbitration agreement, a trial is necessary for the Court to make a factual finding. Because the SMTC Defendants have not carried their burden as to the initial question of contract formation, the Court does not reach any subsequent questions, such as whether the SMTC Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration or whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIg2Gi from PacerMonitor.com. SPARC GROUP: 5th Cir. Certifies Question on CPA Injury Element -------------------------------------------------------------- In the appeal styled as SHAWNNA MONTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPARC GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Daniel P. Collins of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court with respect to the scope of injury protected by Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Montes filed a putative class action against Defendant SPARC Group, LLC d/b/a Aeropostale on behalf of herself and Washington consumers who purchased falsely discounted clothing from Aeropostale. According to Montes, Aeropostale perpetrated the false discounting scheme across its website and in its brick-and-mortar stores in violation of the CPA. SPARC moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the CPA's injury element was not met because Montes's property interest or money was not diminished because of its unlawful conduct. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, stating that Washington cases that find injury in false advertising are for goods and services that were different and/or worth less than what was advertised. The district court concluded that Montes failed to state an injury under the CPA. Relying on two out-of-circuit cases, one from the Sixth Circuit and one from the Southern District of New York, that did not address Washington law, the district court reasoned that because Montes failed to allege that she did not receive the value that she paid for, she failed to sufficiently allege consumer injury under the CPA. The question of whether Montes pleaded a cognizable injury under Washington's CPA is outcome-determinative in this appeal. To date, the Washington Supreme Court has not analyzed whether the type of injury that Montes primarily alleges -- that she would not have purchased the leggings at all had she known they were only worth $6.00 and not worth the misrepresented original price -- constitutes injury under Washington's CPA. In fact, no Washington state court has addressed this precise question. The sole issue is whether Montes has alleged an injury under the CPA. Because this issue is complex and involves policy considerations that are best left to the State of Washington's own courts, the Circuit Judges have concluded that it is prudent to certify this question to the Washington Supreme Court so that it may determine its own law in the first instance. The panel certified the following question to the Washington Supreme Court: When a seller advertises a product's price, coupled with a misrepresentation about the product's discounted price, comparative price, or price history, does a consumer who purchases the product because of the misrepresentation suffer an 'injury in his or her business or property' under Wash. Rev. Code Secs. 19.86.020 and 19.86.090 if the consumer pays the advertised price? A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lJlUXs STATE FARM: Young Bid to Stay Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA CELESTE YOUNG, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00175-HSO-MTP (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Michael T. Parker entered an order denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay. Accordingly, the putative class action has already been pending for more than 18 months. Fact discovery regarding Young's individual claims and class certification issues will close on June 3, 2025, and a class certification motion is due on July 8, 2025. A stay would delay this action, and the Court and the parties have an interest in moving this case forward. If issues remain following a ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [92], this action should be positioned such that final disposition may be achieved in a timely manner. On Nov. 13, 2023, Young filed this putative class action relating to fire damage to her residence, which was insured by a home insurance policy issued by Defendant State Farm. Young alleges that State Farm used "Xactimate" software program in a wrongful manner to calculate the repair and construction costs for her loss. Young asserts that State Farm fraudulently concealed this wrongful practice from her and similarly situated policyholders. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZobrk at no extra charge.[CC] STEELSCAPE: Settlement in Jenkins Suit Gets Preliminary Court Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as MICHAEL JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05127-TMC (W.D. Wash.). Jenkins filed this putative class action lawsuit against Defendant Steelscape Washington, alleging that Steelscape violated the Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW; the Industrial Welfare Act, chapter 49.12 RCW (“TWA”); and the Wage Rebate Act, chapter 49.52 RCW. Jenkins alleges that through the relevant class period -- Jan. 16, 2021 through March 7, 2025 -- Steelscape paid class members based on their scheduled shift length, typically 12 hours, rather than based on the number of hours they actually worked. This caused chronic undercounting of hours worked. Jenkins also alleges that class members were not paid for time spent on preliminary and concluding tasks and that they were not given proper lunch breaks. The parties participated in mediation with an experienced mediator and reached a settlement on Dec. 26, 2024. This is the settlement agreement now before the Court. Proposed Settlement Terms The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as: Plaintiff and all other current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who worked at the Kalama facility in Washington at any time during the Class Period (from January 16, 2021 to March 7, 2025) and for whom damages are calculated as owing by Plaintiff's expert, except any person who timely opts out of the Settlement Class. According to the parties, the proposed Settlement Class includes 198 individuals. The Settlement Agreement provides that Steelscape will pay a gross amount of $6,150,000 to be used for payments to class members as well as costs of administration and permitted attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. The value per class member is $24,650. Class representative Jenkins will seek a service payment of $10,000. Jenkins' counsel will move for an award of reasonable attorney's fees, as well as reimbursement of their reasonable costs and litigation expenses incurred, of up to 20 percent of the Settlement Fund plus $20,000 in estimated litigation costs. The parties propose Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator and estimate that administration expenses will be $8,500. The proposed Settlement Class has 198 members, which satisfies the numerosity requirement. In this case, class members share several common contentions. This satisfies the commonality requirement. Jenkins' claims are typical of class members' claims because they arise from the same course of alleged conduct by Steelscape. Jenkins was subject to the same timekeeping practices and meal break policies as other hourly workers. At this preliminary stage, there is no evidence that Jenkins or his counsel have conflicts of interest with other class members, or that they have failed to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Jenkins seeks settlement class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which provides that a class may be maintained if questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The Court agrees that class certification is appropriate because common questions (such as whether Steelscape's policies and practices violated Washington law) predominate, and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication for thousands of relatively small-value claims. Class members' claims are relatively modest in size, making it unlikely that they would individually seek redress. The parties reached an agreement by the end of the month and spent several additional months working toward a final agreement. At this stage, there is no evidence of collusion or bad faith by counsel or the parties. The Court finds the parties have shown that at this preliminary stage, the proposed settlement is within the range of possible approval and warrants notice to the class members. The proposed service award and attorney's fees that plaintiff's counsel plan to request are in line with other cases, and the attorney's fees are subject to approval of the Court after counsel submits a fee petition. The Court also finds that the notice plan satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c) and (e). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6iul8s from PacerMonitor.com. STERLING: Settlement in Grissom Suit Obtains Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE GRISSOM, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.: 1:20-cv-07948-VSB (S.D.N.Y.). Settlement Class In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously certified, for settlement purposes only, the Injunctive Relief Class defined as follows: All consumers for whom Sterling matched a record included in a consumer report based on a name developed through a SSN trace from September 25, 2018 through June 4, 2021 wherein the consumer's first name, last name and middle name or middle initial did not exactly match the first name, last name, middle name or middle initial of the record reported. Certification of the Injunctive Relief Class is reaffirmed as a final Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds, on the record before it, that this action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of the Injunctive Relief Class. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative, and reaffirms that appointment, finding, on the record before it, that Plaintiff has and continues to adequately represent the Injunctive Relief Class Members. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously certified, for settlement purposes only, the Damages Class defined as follows: All consumers for whom Sterling matched a record included in a consumer report based on a name developed through a SSN Trace from September 25, 2018 through June 4, 2021 wherein the consumer's first name, last name and middle name or middle initial did not exactly match the first name, last name, middle name or middle initial of the record reported; and where the consumer either made a dispute to Defendant regarding the report and an amended report was issued or where a pre-adverse action notice was sent to the consumer regarding the report. Certification of the Damages Class is reaffirmed as a final Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). For the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds, on the record before it, that this action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of the Damages Class. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Damages Class and reaffirms that appointment, finding on the record before it that Plaintiff has and continues to adequately represent the Damages Class Members. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court previously appointed E. Michelle Drake and John G. Albanese of Berger Montague PC as Counsel for the Settlement Classes and reaffirms that appointment, finding, on the record before it, that Class Counsel have and continue to adequately and fairly represent Settlement Class Members. Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court finally approves in all respects the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds the benefits to the Settlement Classes, and all other parts of the Settlement are, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement Classes, within a range that responsible and experienced attorneys could accept considering all relevant risks and factors and the relative merits of the Plaintiff's claims and any defenses of Defendant, and are in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause, and the Class Action Fairness Act. Accordingly, the Settlement shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, with each Settlement Class Member being bound by the Settlement Agreement, including all releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement. All claims in the proceeding are dismissed with prejudice and terminated. Except as otherwise provided herein or in the Settlement Agreement, such dismissal and termination shall occur without costs to Plaintiff or Defendant. All Injunctive Relief Class Members are enjoined from asserting any Released Claim, other than on an individual basis, against any Released Party. All Damages Class Members fully release all Released Parties for all Damages Class Released Claims, and are enjoined from instituting, maintaining, or prosecuting, either directly or indirectly, any lawsuit or claim that asserts any Damages Class Released Claims. The Court, having reviewed the declarations, exhibits, and memoranda submitted in support of the requests for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs, approves an award of attorneys' fee and costs to Class Counsel as to the Damages Class in the amount of $833,333.33 and $20,212.21, respectively, and as to the Injunctive Relief Class, approves the separate payment by Defendant of $500,000. The Court finds these amounts are reasonable and appropriate under all circumstances presented. The Court also approves a service award to the Class Representative Grace Grissom of $10,000, of which $5,000 is to be paid from the Damages Class Settlement Fund and $5,000 to be paid from the $500,000 awarded in connection with the Injunctive Relief Class. The Settlement Administrator is further approved to reimburse its reasonable costs in connection with the Damages Class from the Damages Class Settlement Fund prior to the distribution to the Damages Class Members. The Settlement Administrator is directed to distribute the balance of the Settlement Fund to participating Damages Class Members as expressly set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Should funds remain for cy pres distribution, the Parties' selected organization, The Innocence Project, is approved to receive such residual funds. The Court approves the cy pres recipient as bearing a reasonable relationship to the goals of this litigation, which include ensuring accuracy in criminal background checks. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iT4r7e from PacerMonitor.com. STIIIZY INC: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bradley Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STIIIZY INC., Case No. 25STCV01219 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-04515. The purported class includes: "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was compromised in Defendant's Data Breach, including all those who received notice of the breach."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq. Marc E. Masters, Esq. Gregory T. Nolan, Esq. BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM, LLP 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Phone: (310) 201-2100 Facsimile: (310) 201-2110 Email: erhow@birdmarella.com mmasters@birdmarella.com gnolan@birdmarella.com STURM RUGER: Settlement Class in Jones Suit Gets Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK JONES, MICHELLE GOULD, DICKY WARREN, and CARL JUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STURM, RUGER & COMP ANY, INC. and FREESTYLE SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01233-KAD (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order certifying a Settlement Class defined as: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice by Ruger that their personal information may have been impacted in the Data Incident or whose personal information was otherwise impacted and/or exfiltrated by the data incident, as well as all living individuals residing in the United States whose data was exfiltrated in the data incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (a) all persons who are employees, directors, officers, and agents of the Defendants; (b) governmental entities; and (c) the Judges assigned to the action, members of the Judges' immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid request to opt-out or be excluded from the Settlement Class. Mark Jones, Michelle Gould, Dicky Warren, and Carl Jung are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the Settlement Class and that they will be adequate Class Representatives. A final approval hearing shall be held 10:00 A.M. on Oct. 24, 2025. All reasonable costs incurred with notifying Settlement Class Members of the Settlement and administering the Settlement shall be paid as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. However, the costs of notice and administration shall not exceed $97,026.00 without further order of the Court. Sturm is an American firearm manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lTVo6x at no extra charge.[CC] SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cavaluzzi, et al. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the County of Sullivan's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in in the case captioned as GLORIA CAVALUZZI et al., Plaintiffs, -v- COUNTY OF SULLIVAN, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-11067-PAE (S.D.N.Y.). Geraldine Tyler owned a condominium in Hennepin County, Minnesota, on which unpaid property taxes had accumulated. Hennepin County, acting under Minnesota's forfeiture procedures, seized and sold her condominium for more than her outstanding debt. Tyler filed a putative class action against the county and its officials. She claimed that, in retaining the surplus, Hennepin County had violated the Takings Clause, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. In Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), the Supreme Court held that a county could be liable for taking private property without just compensation where, after foreclosing on and selling a taxpayer's real property in order to extinguish her property tax debt, it kept for itself the proceeds of the sale beyond those necessary to extinguish the debt. That was so regardless of the fact that the county, in retaining the excess proceeds, acted pursuant to state law. This case is based on and was brought shortly after the Tyler decision. It entails similar claims by 25 residents of New York's Sullivan County, whose properties the County sold to satisfy local tax delinquencies. They claim that the County violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, when it retained the proceeds of the tax foreclosure sales in excess of the sum necessary to pay the outstanding property taxes, interest, and penalties. Based on the same conduct, plaintiffs also claim violations of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment and, separately, of New York State law. In a decision issued Dec. 27, 2024, the Court denied the County's first motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Court rejected the County's arguments that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking, on the ground that the AC's claims were not ripe, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l), and that the AC did not state a claim, including because plaintiffs' claims were purportedly untimely. Pending now is the County's second motion to dismiss the AC under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l), 12(b)(7), and 19. Plaintiffs are a group of 25 owners of properties in Sullivan County who failed to pay local property taxes and penalties. The County foreclosed on their properties, and sold these at tax auctions between July 16, 2019, and Feb. 2, 2023, i.e., before Tyler was decided on May 25, 2023. In each case, the properties sold for an amount exceeding the plaintiffs tax debt, with the resulting surpluses ranging from $5,750, to $250,000, and an average surplus of$51,000. The County retained, and to date has not returned, the excess funds. On Dec. 5, 2023, the 25 plaintiffs sued the County and Nancy Buck, in her official capacity as its treasurer, in federal district court in the Northern District of New York. They brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, contending that the County's retention of the surplus from the tax foreclosure sales violated the Takings and Excessive Fine Clauses. They also brought state law claims of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. On Dec. 21, 2023, the case was transferred to this Court. In invoking the political question doctrine, the County argues that the AC implicates political issues that involve the assessment, levy, or collection of any tax under State law. It notes that its pre-Tyler practice of keeping foreclosure tax surpluses derives from New York State's foreclosure scheme, which the County effectively opted into by not enacting its own tax foreclosure law when it could (i.e., before 1993). According to the Court, the history by which the County came to retain foreclosure surpluses, however, does not trigger the political question doctrine. Nothing in that doctrine prevents the Court-any more than in Tyler-from exercising jurisdiction over claims that a County's retention of foreclosure surpluses from the sales of plaintiffs properties is unconstitutional under the Takings Clause. The Court accordingly denies the County's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the political question doctrine. The County separately argues, under Rule 12(b )(7), for dismissal for plaintiffs' failure to join the State, a purported necessary party under Rule 19. That motion fails, because complete relief is achievable among the parties, and the State's participation is unnecessary to resolve plaintiffs' claims, the Court finds. The County argues that the State was a necessary and indispensable party which Rule 19 required plaintiffs to join. Its principal basis for that argument is that the State's 1993 legislation bound the County, and, in the County's telling, forbade it from returning excess foreclosure proceeds to property owners, and that because state law purportedly impeded the County from returning the excess, it is a required party to this suit. The County's counterarguments fail. Even crediting that the County's hands were tied by the State, the County's retention of funds in excess of those needed to cover a tax delinquency makes it a party against whom a plaintiff seeking damages under Sec. 1983 for an unlawful taking can obtain complete relief: repayment of the excess. The State's presence as a party is unnecessary to vindicate that claim, the Court finds. The County also argues that it is financially strapped and notes that, if it is held liable, it will need to muster the financial resources necessary to fund and pay such damages. According to the Court, dismissal based on a county's reluctance to raise funds to compensate the victims of such constitutional violations would flagrantly breach the Supreme Court's command in Tyler. The Court accordingly denies the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7). The State is not a necessary party, and its joinder is not mandatory under Rule 19, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ASvCJO from PacerMonitor.com. SURESITE CONSULTING: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rogelio Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SURESITE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV008867 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00412. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims of Discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); Harassment in violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in violation of the FEHA; Discrimination for exercising leave under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"); Retaliation for exercising leave under the CFRA; Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; Failure to pay minimum wages; Failure to pay overtime wages; Failure to provide meal periods; Failure to permit rest breaks; Failure to provide adequate water breaks and supply drinking water; Failure to reimburse business expenses; Failure to provide itemized wage statements; Failure to pay all wages during employment; Failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; Unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices (Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.); and representative claims pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. Valle, Esq. Julie Roback, Esq. VALLE MAKOFF LLP 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 890 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Phone: (310) 476-0300 Facsimile: (310) 476-0333 Email: jvalle@vallemakoff.com jroback@vallemakoff.com SV SUPER: Ruben Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Randall Ruben, an Arizona resident, Plaintiff v. SV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc., an Arizona company; and Sameer Qasem an Arizona resident; Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00228-JR (D. Ariz., May 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Statute. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Collective Members were compensated on an hourly basis and were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were also compensated below the Arizona minimum wage threshold. Plaintiff Ruben worked with the Defendants as a store worker from July 2024 to present. SV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc. is a retail store authorized to do business in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Kuklinski, Esq. Eva Vasquez, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone/Facsimile: (480) 442-3410 E-mail: akuklinski@weilerlaw.com evasquez@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Tapestry Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On December 23, 2024, a putative securities class actions was filed by plaintiff shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Capri and certain of its officers and against Tapestry and certain of its officers, alleging that during the respective class periods (between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024), Capri and Tapestry misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts about Capri's business, operations, market dynamics, and the prospects for approval of the Capri Acquisition, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. The complaints, which each allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and equitable relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company. TAPIS CORPORATION: Standing Order Entered in Nicholls Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW NICHOLLS, v. TAPIS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00870-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order standing order as follows: 1. Service of the Complaint. Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and electronically lodge a proposed order which sets forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. Motions shall be filed and set for hearing in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Motions will be heard on Mondays commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion noticed for a holiday shall automatically be set to the next Monday without further notice to the parties. Not withstanding Local Rule 23−3, the deadline for the filing of a motion for class certification will be set during the Scheduling Conference and/or in a Scheduling Order. Tapis has been a pioneer in the development of high -performance fabrics for aircraft interiors. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CX2rd7 at no extra charge.[CC] TELEPHONE AND DATA: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. (TDS) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2025, that on February 28, 2025, the parties in a May 2, 2023 putative stockholder class action filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, reached a settlement in principle. An amended complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names TDS, UScellular, and certain current UScellular officers and directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the potential class period) regarding, among other things, UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified money damages. On November 1, 2024, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. TDS is a diversified telecommunications company that provides high-quality communications services to approximately 5.5 million connections nationwide as of March 31, 2025. It provides wireless services and leases tower space to third-party carriers on owned towers through its 83%-owned subsidiary, United States Cellular Corporation (UScellular). THELENDINGFAMILY.COM: Plaintiff's Bid for Alternate Service Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jacqueline M. DeLuca of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to permit alternate service on TheLendingFamily.com in the case captioned as ALEJANDRO VALLESILLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. THELENDINGFAMILY.COM, an unknown business entity; JOHN DOE, an individual; JACQUELINE LEVY, an individual; and JACOB LEVY, an individual; Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00343 (D. Neb.). Plaintiff filed this putative class action against unknown defendant John Doe and unknown business entity TheLendingFamily.com on Sept. 4, 2024. After Plaintiff tried and failed to serve TheLendingFamily.com, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and allowed Plaintiff to subpoena the website (Godaddy) hosting TheLendingFamily.com to discover Defendants' identities. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint adding Jacob and Jacqueline Levy as Defendants. The Court previously denied Plaintiff's request to serve Jacob via alternative service without prejudice when it found Plaintiff failed to establish due diligence in attempting to effectuate service pursuant to New York state law. Plaintiff now requests the Court allow him to serve TheLendingFamily.com via the New York Secretary of State. He previously attempted service of the original complaint on TheLendingFamily.com at an address in Brooklyn, New York then-listed on its website. The process server reported an unrelated business and two unrelated residential units were located at this address. He also attempted to serve TheLendingFamily.com the operative complaint at a different address in Brooklyn, New York now listed on its website. Another unrelated business is located at this address. There is no registered agent listed for TheLendingFamily.com on the New York Secretary of State's website. Plaintiff failed to prove service on TheLendingFamily.com via the New York Secretary of State is appropriate pursuant to CPLR 311-a, the Court finds. He provided no evidence TheLendingFamily.com is an LLC registered with the New York Department of State. Nor does he allege TheLendingFamily.com is an LLC at all. The Court will not presume TheLendingFamily.com's corporate identity, especially on an ex parte motion. Plaintiff must provide evidence as to TheLendingFamily.com's corporate identity, identify the correct statute(s) governing service of process on that type of entity, and cite authority supporting his argument the Court may issue an order authorizing alternative service on that entity. Plaintiff is granted an extension of forty-five (45) days to serve Defendants, including methods of service as permitted under New York state law or the law of the state in which service is to be made. He must provide proof of service by June 20, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HsXcq4 from PacerMonitor.com. TIP-TOP ROOFING: Good Luck Joins Bid to Stay 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 Good Luck, Inc.'s submits joinder in various Defendants' motion to stay class certification pending ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to extend briefing deadline(s) to allow for pre-class certification discovery. Good Luck joins in totality and adopts by reference, as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), Defendants Pacific Contractors, LLC; Pacific Contractors, Inc.; South Atlantic Framing, Inc.; Carolina Custom Carpentry, LLC; and SRC Construction, LLC's Motion to Stay Class Certification Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Extend Briefing Deadline(s) to Allow For Pre-Class Certification Discovery filed in the above-captioned matter on May 9, 2025. All arguments and authorities set forth in the Motion by the Movants are joined in and adopted by reference as if fully set forth verbatim herein by Good Luck, Inc. as being mutually applicable to Good Luck, Inc. and further as Good Luck, Inc.’s own Motion to Stay Class Certification Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Extend Briefing Deadline(s) to Allow For Pre-Class Certification Discovery in this action. Good Luck, Inc. requests that this Court stay the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pending a ruling on the Motions to Compel Arbitration currently before the Court in this matter. 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=VEp5cW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Shelley Sunderman Montague, Esq. Eleanor L. Jones, Esq. GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A. Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 779-1833 E-mail: smontague@gwblawfirm.com ejones@gwblawfirm.com TIP-TOP ROOFING: JJL Seeks to Stay Class Cert Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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.), JJL Construction, Llc' ask the Court to enter an order Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA): -- staying class certification pending this court's ruling on the defendants' previously filed motions to compel arbitration; and -- staying and/or extending the briefing deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until the pending motions to compel arbitration have been decided and/or until the parties have an opportunity to conduct pre-class certification discovery. The Defendants include Pacific Contractors, LLC, 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 dba Firm Foundation Coastal Carolinas, 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/s Superior Distribution, Contract Lumber, Inc., BMC East, LLC, USLBM-Professional Builders Supply a/k/a US LBM Holdings, LLC a/k/a US LBM, LLC, and DR Horton. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SKDOiY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Leech, Esq. CLAWSON and STAUBES, LLC 126 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200 Charleston, SC 29492-8144 Telephone: (843) 577-2026 Facsimile: (843) 722-2867 E-mail: mleech@cslaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: DePietro Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is styled as Anthony DePietro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02879 (E.D.N.Y, May 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. -- https://tsico.com/ -- is a leading technology enabled BPO partner providing receivables management, customer care, back office support and consumer loan servicing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J.S. Pontone, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J.S. PONTONE, ESQ. 532 Union Street Brookyln, NY 11215 Phone: (917) 648-8784 Fax: (718) 228-8459 Email: michael@pontonelaw.com TRIGRAM: Ample Luck Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Marchese Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Lance E. Walker of the United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Ample Luck International Capital Group Ltd.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as JENNIFER MARCHESE, Plaintiff, v. TRIGRAM EDUCATION PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a TRIGRAM EDUCATION PARTNERS, MINERVA INFLECTION STRATEGIES, LP, AMPLE LUCK INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL GROUP LTD., and STANFORD SILVERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00425-LEW (D. Me.). Counts I, II, and IV will proceed to trial. Plaintiff Jennifer Marchese is a former employee of Defendant Trigram Education Partners. She filed this action on her own behalf and as a prospective lead plaintiff in a collective/class action suit based on Defendant's alleged violations of federal and state wage laws, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Previously, Defendant Ample Luck moved to dismiss the case. The Court granted Ample Luck's motion in part, as to Marchese's fraud claim. Now before the Court is Ample Luck's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining claims. Years ago, Jennifer Marchese became employed by Premier Education Group at the Harris School in Sanford where she worked her way from an hourly instructor to Campus President. She was Campus President in 2020 when Defendant Trigram purchased Premier's assets, including the Harris School. Following the purchase, Trigram hired Marchese with the same title and compensation. Trigram's membership interest is split 50/50 between Defendants Minerva and Ample Luck. Trigram quickly had financial difficulties. Those in charge of obtaining funding for Trigram encountered obstacles such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the Chinese Government's decision to block some of Ample Luck's funding streams. Because of its failure to secure credit, Trigram's educational accreditation was withdrawn. Marchese alleges that Ample Luck and the other Defendants, through an ongoing series of fraudulent and otherwise patently misleading communications falsely assured Trigram employees that they would be paid in full. Marchese contends she and other employees worked unpaid from the summer of 2020 through Trigram's eventual loss of accreditation and, to this day, have never been paid their wages. Plaintiffs' Complaint charges all Defendants with violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, violating Maine's wage and hour statute, fraud, and unjust enrichment. FLSA The thrust of Ample Luck's motion is that it cannot be considered an "employer" under the FLSA. Ample Luck views Trigram as the sole employer of Marchese. Ample Luck argues that because Plaintiff has failed to offer evidence that it exercised any control over her or any Trigram employee, it cannot be considered an employer. Judge Walker holds that Ample Luck's ability to secure funding directly influenced Trigram's ability to meet payroll, and thus comply with the FLSA. In this way, one could reasonably conclude Ample Luck had one significant form of control over labor relations: whether laborers were paid. And during Trigram's acquisition of the Harris school until its loss of accreditation, one could also find the remaining integrated enterprise factors were present. All in all, given the FLSA's loose relatedness standard and the flexibility of the economic reality test, a genuine issue exists as to Ample Luck's employer status. Ample Luck's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's FLSA claim is therefore denied. Maine Wage and Hour Statute Ample Luck argues makes more or less the same arguments it does under the FLSA. At the very least, the Maine Law Court considers lower courts' application of the integrated employer test to not be in obvious error. Ample Luck's motion for summary judgment will be denied as to Plaintiff's claims under Maine's wage and hour statute. Unjust Enrichment Ample Luck asserts that, as a matter of law, some manner of employment contract existed between Trigram and Marchese. Based on that express or implied contract, it extrapolates that the unjust enrichment claim serves no purpose. Judge Walker explains that tThe summary judgment record establishes as an undisputed fact that, following its purchase of the Harris School, Trigram hired Marchese with the same title and compensation she had previously. That undisputed fact directs a further finding of either an express or an implied contract running between Trigram and Marchese. That finding would require the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim as to Trigram, but not necessarily its parent company, Ample Luck. There might not be any contract between Marchese and Ample Luck, since the contract was originally drawn between Marchese and Ample Luck's subsidiary, Trigram. He adds that at Ample Luck's direction, entreaties were made to Trigram's employees to persuade them to continue working without pay for Trigram, based on the promise of funding to be acquired by Ample Luck, so that Trigram might not fail. That may or may not have given rise to yet another employment contract between Ample Luck and Trigram employees, but assuming it did not, unjust enrichment could provide relief in the absence of a claim at law. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2PwgMv from PacerMonitor.com. UNION LEAGUE GOLF: Kryszczak Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union League Golf Club at Torresdale Frankford, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Kryszczak, Kathleen Lawson, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. Union League Golf Club at Torresdale Frankford, LLC, Case No. 250502751 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, May 21, 20255). The case type is stated as "Other Contract." The Union League Golf Club at Torresdale --- https://member.unionleague.org/golf/torresdale -- is a challenging 18-hole Donald Ross design located just 12 miles northeast of Center City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: Tijerina Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as BEATRIZ TIJERINA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-02466-BEN-SBC (S.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. On Nov. 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in San Diego County Superior Court, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide meal and rests periods, issue accurate wage statements, reimburse business expenses, and pay timely wages, as well as unfair competition and individual claims of discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The proposed class includes all non-exempt employees of United Airlines in California from April 1, 2023, to the present, originally estimated at 13,600 employees. On Dec. 26, 2024, United Airlines removed the case to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and removal procedures under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1453, asserting that the class exceeds 100 members, minimal diversity exists, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Specifically, United estimates the amount in controversy to be $137,186,540. Plaintiff moves to remand, arguing that United Airlines failed to establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence, and relies on unsupported assumptions about violation rates. The issue is whether United has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. United estimates the amount in controversy to be $137,186,540, comprising damages for meal and rest period premiums, unpaid overtime, and attorneys' fees, while excluding additional claims such as minimum wage violations and wage statement penalties. Plaintiff challenges this estimate, arguing that United's assumptions about violation rates are unsupported and inconsistent with the Complaint's allegations of sporadic violations occurring "from time to time" or "periodically." United defends its 10 percent violation rate as conservative, citing cases accepting similar rates for complaints alleging a "policy and practice" of violations tempered by "from time to time" language. According to the Court, United's 10 percent violation rate for meal and rest period premiums and one-hour-per-week overtime assumption are reasonably interpreted from the Complaint. The Court finds United has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, satisfying CAFA's jurisdictional requirements. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iWtfVI from PacerMonitor.com. UNITED STATES: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Hymas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Clifton L. Corker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion for recusal in the case captioned as JAY HYMAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-CV-00336-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.). A pro se litigant, Mr. Hymas brings suit against the United States Department of State and the United States Department of the Treasury, with claims for extortion, violation of his constitutional right to travel, violation of his constitutional right to due process of law, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551, et seq. He moves for a preliminary injunction against Defendants, and also requests class certification of his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Seeking assistance in pursuing class certification, Mr. Hymas recently moved the Court for appointment of counsel under Rule 23(g)(3), which provides that the court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action. The Court denied his motion, and he now moves the Court to reconsider its denial of his motion and to recuse itself. Mr. Hymas asserts that the Court, in denying his motion for appointment counsel, erred because it misconstrued his motion by wrongly believing that he was seeking counsel for himself and not the class. Generally, courts appoint counsel under Rule 23(g)(3) when there are competing or similar lawsuits pending, but as Defendants correctly argue, Mr. Hymas does not assert that similar lawsuits exist in this district or elsewhere. Mr. Hymas's argument that the Court misconstrued his motion, and committed clear error along the way, is therefore fallacious, and his motion for reconsideration is denied. Mr. Hymas seeks the Court's recusal, arguing that recusal is warranted to preserve the perception of impartiality and duty. He asserts that recusal is necessary because he is displeased with how the Court ruled on his motion for appointment of counsel. He also seeks the Court's recusal because, in his view, the Court refuses to hold a hearing and adjudicate his motion for injunctive relief. His displeasure with the pace of this case's movement is not a basis for the Court's recusal, however. Mr. Hymas identifies no facts that would lead a reasonable person to question the Court's impartiality, nor does he establish the existence of an extra-judicial source of bias or prejudice. His motion for recusal is therefore denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDzCQM from PacerMonitor.com. UTAH: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Maxfield, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify class in the case captioned as LEEANNE MAXFIELD, et al., Plaintiff, v. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, et al., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00099-DN-PK (D. Utah). Plaintiffs LeeAnne Maxfield, Jay Clayton, Cheree Kahrs, Jodi Rowley, Victoria Bower, Heather Dawn Hart, Alison Cicala, Calvin Ockey, and Lisa Ockey brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs allege they were employees of Defendants and that Defendants "willfully misclassified" them and other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime in accordance with the FLSA. Plaintiffs filed the motion seeking to represent "all individuals operating or managing a liquor store in the State of Utah through a Type 3 Package Agency but who were not paid as a W-2 employee from July 31, 2020 to the present." Plaintiffs are all current or former package agents. They filed suit in September 2021. Plaintiffs' Complaint brought claims for a failure to pay overtime under the FLSA, fraudulent misrepresentation and inducement, fraudulent or negligent nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied employment contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and a failure to pay benefits. Defendants successfully moved dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims except the FLSA claim for overtime. Plaintiffs argue that each plaintiff and proposed members of the class were each victims of the same decision, policy, or plan because the State of Utah, through the DABC, made the improper decision to classify all persons working as package agents as independent contractors rather than employees regardless of the nature of the work performed. In support of Plaintiffs argument that they are employees of Defendants, they allege that the DABC controls every aspect of the work performed" by them and the potential class members. Defendants argue that conditional certification is inappropriate because the Plaintiffs' package agencies have different corporate structures, and the Plaintiffs have different ownership interests based on the different structures. But Defendants do not actually explain how the different structures or interests make the various package agents differently situated and offer conclusory speculation that the differences in structure must create a difference. But the contractual structure of the package agencies does not undercut Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants' actions created an employer-employee relationship regardless of the contractual structures, or undercut Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants did not pay overtime, the Court finds. Defendants may be able to show the corporate structures undercut Plaintiffs' assertions that the Plaintiffs and potential class members are similarly situated, but Defendants argument fails at this time. Similarly, Defendants' argument about distinctions between operating and managing a package agency is insufficiently developed or clear and does not prevent conditional class certification, the Court concludes. Defendants also argue that application of different exemptions to the FLSA will require individual determinations that make conditional class certification inappropriate. According to the Court, Plaintiffs' allegations are substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. These allegations are sufficient to conditionally certify the class as sought in the Motion and to provide notice to potential class members, the Court holds. The claim asserted by Plaintiffs for alleged violations of the FLSA is conditionally certified as a collective action under the FLSA for the purpose of sending notice to "all individuals operating or managing a liquor store in the State of Utah through a Type 3 Package Agency but who were not paid as a W-2 employee from July 31, 2020 to the present." Defendants will have the right to move to decertify the collective action or oppose a request by Plaintiffs for final certification of the collective action after discovery has closed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KwmNBf from PacerMonitor.com. VETERANS GUARDIAN: Ford Seeks Leave to Amend Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER FORD, ERIC BEARD, and BRIAN OTTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to amend the complaint and join the Individual Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). In the proposed Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the Individual Defendants are liable for the Plaintiffs' relief jointly and severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and questions of law and fact common to all Defendants will arise in this action. The Amended Complaint is not futile because it alleges the same unlawful conduct this Court previously sustained in the Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and case law supports the addition of defendants who are personally liable for all torts committed by them, including negligence, notwithstanding that they may have acted as agents or officers for a corporation. Veterans is a pre-filing consulting firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zj6Faw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com - and - Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net josterwise@bm.net rraghavan@bm.net VIVID SEATS: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vivid Seats, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-711 (E.D. Wis., May 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against Vivid Seats for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://vividseats.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, inadequate focus order, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Vividseats.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Vivid Seats' 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. Vivid Seats, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to goods and services, including, the ability to order tickets for live events, including concerts, sports events, theater performances, music festivals, and conferences.[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 VOGUE INTERNATIONAL: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOGUE INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-04034 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and 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 conditioner from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Vogue International LLC operates the website that offers hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WASHINGTON NATIONALS: Synder Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK SNYDER, et al., v. WASHINGTON NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-CJN (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for Rule 23 certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement. Washington Nationals is a major league baseball team formed in 1969. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7qnKRG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. David Berman, Esq. PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 355-6364 E-mail: peter@prf-law.com berman@prf-law.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG WILLIAMS DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com WEBCOLLEX LLC: Gutierrez's Gets Default Judgment ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC d/b/a CKS Financial, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Claire entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff's April 2, 2025, motion for default judgment is granted; 2. The court awards plaintiff $2,000.00 in statutory damages, $512.89 in costs, and $23,080.00 in attorney's fees; and 3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the plaintiff and this case shall be closed. The court concludes that the allegations are sufficient to support a full award of statutory damages under the Rosenthal Act. The Plaintiff initiated this action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDPCA"), by filing a complaint with the court on May 25, 2023 against the defendant. On Jan. 14, 2025, the court issued an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's answer and ordering the Clerk to enter default against the Defendant. Webcollex is a third-party debt collector. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BF5N3e at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN FIRST: Class Cert Filing in Brown Due March 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- ASamanatha Shaunee Brown v. Western First Aid & Safety, 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: Aramark is a supplier of rental uniforms and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PPLvwD at no extra charge.[CC] WILKES BARRE, PA: Arias Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesis Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. City of Wilkes Barre and City of Wilkes Barre Police civil Service Commision, Case No. 3:24-cv-01517-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Saporito, Jr. entered an order modifying Jan. 28, 2025 scheduling order: The Plaintiff shall submit any affirmative expert report no later than Sept. 2,2025. Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no later than Oct. 2, 2025. The Plaintiff shall file her class certification motion no later than Nov. 3, 2025. Wilkes-Barre is a city located at the center of the Wyoming Valley in Northeastern Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8qqeoJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 The Defendants are represented by: Drew P. McLaughlin ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C. 15 Public Square, Suite 210 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Telephone: (570) 371-5290 E-mail: DPM@elliottgreenleaf.com WORKFORCE7 INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to June 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order that the terms of the Feb. 24, 2025 Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order and April 25, 2025 briefing schedule shall continue in full force and effect except for the following modifications: a. The Plaintiffs and Workforce7 Inc., Ronald Hilton and Vali Industries Inc. to file their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement on or before June 23, 2025; b. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification on or before June 6, 2025; c. The Defendants shall file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion on or before July 14, 2025; d. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion on or before July 28, 2025; e. Expert disclosures due on or before June 20, 2025; f. Fact discovery, including all depositions of fact and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses regarding Count 10 shall be completed by Aug. 5, 2025. Workforce7 provides professional flagging services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eyOWL4 at no extra charge.[CC] WORLD MARKET: Loses Bid to Dismiss Harvey False Advertising Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied World Market, LLC's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HARVEY, Plaintiff, v. WORLD MARKET, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-01242-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Valerie Harvey sues World Market, LLC and Cost Plus World Market, LLC, alleging that World Market engaged in a deceptive advertising practice commonly referred to as "drip pricing" by not including certain fees in its listing prices. Harvey brings claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated California consumers under three California consumer protection statutes: (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) the Unfair Competition Law, and (3) the False Advertising Law. On Oct. 3, 2024, Harvey filed her initial class action complaint in Alameda County Superior Court. World Market removed the case to federal court and now moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. World Market contends that Harvey fails to sufficiently allege two elements that are necessary to establish standing under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL: reliance and harm. World Market argues that Harvey lacks standing to bring her three state law claims because she does not plausibly allege that she relied on any misleading advertising practice in completing her transaction. It asserts that Harvey's "conclusory allegation" that she would not have purchased the product in question had World Market initially displayed the product's total price is insufficient to establish actual reliance. The Court concludes that Harvey has standing to bring her claims and that she has stated a claim under section 1770(a)(29). The Court concludes that reliance is presumed in section 1770(a)(29) claims -- at least at the pleading stage for purposes of assessing a plaintiff's statutory standing -- in circumstances where a product is advertised at a price that does not include all mandatory charges (other than taxes and shipping fees) that will be reasonably and actually incurred. That Harvey decided to complete the transaction after discovering the initially undisclosed fees is therefore irrelevant to determining whether a reasonable consumer would find those fees to be material, the Court notes. The Court therefore presumes Harvey's reliance on World Market's allegedly misleading advertising for purposes of this motion, satisfying that requirement of her CLRA claim. And because her claims under the UCL and FAL are premised on the alleged section 1770(a)(29) violation, Harvey has also sufficiently alleged reliance under those statutes. World Market also argues that Harvey lacks standing under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL because she fails to allege damages. World Market contends that Harvey cannot plausibly allege that she was harmed by knowingly paying for a product that she, in fact, received. The Court concludes because Harvey has plausibly alleged that she lost "money or property" under the UCL and FAL's test, she has also satisfied the CLRA's "any damage" standard. World Market also argues that Harvey fails to state a claim under the CLRA. World Market contends that Harvey's CLRA claim should be dismissed because she does not allege with particularity any facts indicating that World Market violated section 1770(a)(29). World Market contends that Harvey provides no factual support for her "conclusory allegation" that World Market did not actually incur the fees it charged her. But Harvey has adequately alleged that World Market does not actually incur the shipping fees it charges, the Court finds. She alleges that World Market charges shipping fees based upon the sale price of the products in question instead of the costs World Market actually incurs. Taken as true, Harvey's allegations are sufficient to state a claim -- even under Rule 9(b) -- because the Court can infer that World Market's purported shipping costs are not actually incurred. Harvey thus satisfied Rule 9(b)'s standard in that she provided notice of the specific fraudulent conduct that World Market must defend against. She has therefore stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gG5XBm from PacerMonitor.com. WVMF FUNDING: Bid for Summary Judgment Stricken in Renois Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renois v. WVMF Funding, LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting the Plaintiff's bid to strike the Defendants' summary judgment motion, without prejudice, as premature. Alternatively, the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter a briefing schedule adjourning the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendants' summary judgment motion until 45-days after face and expert discovery is completed. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied as premature and non-compliant with the individual rules and practices of the undersigned. The denial is without prejudice to renewal after discovery and in compliance with all pertinent rules. The Plaintiff alleges the unlawful imposition of forced placed insurance on seniors with reverse mortgages. A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NuiaH9 at no extra charge.[CC] ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss LaRock WPRA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied ZoomInfo Technologies LLC's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations in the case captioned as MEMARY LAROCK, Plaintiff, v. ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-05745-KKE (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Memary LaRock sues ZoomInfo Technologies LLC for violating Washington's Personality Rights Act, WASH. REV. CODE Sec. 63.60.050. LaRock argues that the free profile previews and free trials published by ZoomInfo wrongly use LaRock and other putative class members' names to advertise ZoomInfo's products and services. LaRock brings this action on behalf of two putative classes: Free Preview Profile Page Class: All natural persons residing in the United States, but excluding persons residing in California, Illinois, Indiana, and Nevada, who are not subscribers to Zoominfo.com and for whom Defendant established a free preview "profile" page on Zoominfo.com. Free Trial Class: All natural persons residing in the United States, but excluding persons residing in California, Illinois, Indiana, and Nevada, who are not subscribers to Zoominfo.com and for whom Defendant established a "Contact Profile" page accessible to 'free trial' subscribers of Zoominfo.com. ZoomInfo moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the alleged uses are exempted under the WPRA. ZoomInfo also moves to strike the class allegations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and 23 because the WPRA bars class actions and a multi-state class action is improper. ZoomInfo argues that LaRock has failed to state a claim because the WPRA's "descriptive" exemption applies to the ZoomInfo preview page and pages available during the free trial. Because LaRock has alleged that her name is used by ZoomInfo to do more than merely describe its goods or services, the Court denies ZoomInfo's motion on the basis of the descriptive use exemption. ZoomInfo also argues that LaRock's claim fails under the WPRA's incidental use exemption. According to the Court, LaRock's allegation that ZoomInfo's use of names is "integral" to its marketing is sufficient to overcome the "incidental use" defense at this stage of the proceedings. ZoomInfo's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. The Court concludes that the WPRA class action ban is not applicable in federal court. ZoomInfo also argues the class allegations should be stricken because the WPRA cannot be applied to out-of-state residents under a choice of law analysis and the dormant Commerce Clause. It asserts that non-residents cannot seek relief under Washington's law where their own state laws provide different protections. The Court finds on its face, the WPRA applies to conduct which occurs in Washington state, and the complaint alleges only conduct taking place in Washington. As such, there is no obvious constitutional barrier to applying it to the class on the facts alleged in this case. The Court concludes that the class allegations are sufficiently pleaded. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4QnO3o from PacerMonitor.com. ZRALOV INC: Masich Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Yaroslav Masich, individually, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated potential Plaintiffs v. ZRALOV INC., and RASHID ZRALOV, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-02538 (W.D. Tenn., May 22, 2025), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks unpaid overtime wages, permanent injunctive relief, back wages, liquidated damages, and other damages. The Defendants either misclassify or misclassified as independent contractors and fail(ed) to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Masich regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, was paid by the hour, but did not receive overtime premium pay at any time during the relevant period. Furthermore Defendant Zralov failed to pay any FICA taxes for Plaintiff, obligating Plaintiff to pay the full amount himself, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a fiber technician or data center technician in Tennessee and Texas for Defendants. Zralov Inc. designs and builds graphic processing unit (GPU) infrastructure for data centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.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 ***